Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Crouch, Swale!

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

Contents

4th-order administrative division versus the villageEdit

Hi.

Can you point to the consensus-reaching discussion that decided that a village is subordinate to a civil parish ? Many villages are in civil parishes that do not repeat the village name... do we subordinate those parishes to the settlements within them ? Do we reverse subordinate the geo-administrative entities of England, then, county, then district, then civil parish, to be below each individual settlement that is at the moment part of those higher cats ? A civil parish, below district, is the major 4th-order administrative division... we typically group settlements per their relative importance as geo-administrative entities. My view is that just because a village sometimes carries the name of the civil parish, a name given for administrative purposes only, not for any special importance, it doesn't award it priority per cats. After all, a village might have a village community meeting... is that more important than an elected civil parish council ?

You might argue that a village of the same name as the civil parish has an 'ecclesiastical parish' church (this type of parish sometimes, and historically maybe, equating somewhat to today's civil parish area), and therefore might derive some special importance; but in many civil and ecclesiastical parishes there are other villages which have churches of similar or greater importance, so today this outdated view doesn't really wash. Historically absorbed villages and hamlets are smaller than parishes and are logically under a cat which doesn't need the special 'civil parish' added, but villages in a civil parish of the same name, especially those pages with lots of images, could need to be signified as 'village' sub-cat of the civil parish name. I suppose we could argue that Borham village is a more important geo-administrative entity than the Borham 4th-order administrative division... not my view. Boreham for a search is foremost a civil parish (doesn't need to be labelled as such), with multiple subordinate settlements and landmarks, one of which is a village of the same name. If the parish/village/other settlements together add up to few files it would be not helpful to sub-cat separate them.

Your thoughts on this please, and again could you point to any consensus discussed ? I suppose what I see as an anomaly perhaps arose through a continuance of what I consider a bad start. Acabashi (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This was brought up at Category talk:Llangelynin, in the case of Boreham, if there is separate cats for the place and the parish (and they share the same name) then "Foo" and "Foo (civil parish)" are usually used. However generally we don't make a distinction between places and parishes when they have the same name. In the case of Boreham there is only Russell Green in the parish so it probably doesn't need separate cats anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't notice any general consensus or guideline/policy pointing about a ranging and general discussion which might apply Commons-wide in the particular case you brought up. As you know with your former association with Wikipedia, we have there helpful consensus-led projects to decide these kind of things, but here there seems no useful agreed project-page-led guidance, so it seems people, even Admins, make it up on the hoof, and to their own predilections, and often perhaps flawed common convention.
I still contend that parish villages and associated settlements, whatever their name, are subservient to 4th-order administrative divisions and should be added under them (giving parishes the name without the 'civil parish' moniker), as districts are subservient to counties which again are subservient to countries. As for Borham (the village), I am adding up to 250 photos; a sidelining (and here is a real and general point) of the civil parish by making a search for Boreham link primarily to the village, disenfranchising the efforts of all those who have helped to populate the parish higher level. A priority-based separation is necessary... if the 4th-order administrative division images are mixed with a massive influx (admittedly mine in Boreham's case) of village photos, they would be overwhelmed and would not be fair to those other photographers. I'm sure that you would not like others to cat-sideline the many photos you have taken the trouble to go out to take (like me on my frequent excursions specifically for the project) by a sideline backwater 'civil parish' naming. This is not an obtuse point... a Commons search for a place will inevitably go to the lower order and lower priority 'village'. Bear in mind that we have seemingly accepted lower cats for churches, viz. [actual brackets] '(interiors)', '(stained glass)' etc.
I think I will have to take this to a some higher plain; the difficulty and inadequacy is that there seems to be no forum here which might generate and invite deeper discussion and consensus on this topic and other matters; the 'village pump', so-called, hardly cuts the mustard. Acabashi (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been uneasy about CP vs village for a long time. When no distinction is made, all is fine and both concepts are handled by the same category. When a split is needed, clearly the category tree should have the structure County->District->Parish->Village->Building. What is not clear is the names for Parish and Village.
The de facto convention on Commons is to give the village primacy. I honestly can't say where that convention came from, but there are IMO two main threads to the logic justifying it:
  1. There is a very clear analog to this problem at the district-level, and that has been extensively discussed on Wikipedia. When the district takes its name from the large town/city at its heart, and is clearly a distinct entity the article on the settlement takes the plain name and the district has a disambiguated title. That is true irrespective of the status of the settlement. So the settlements of Tewkesbury (a CP), Canterbury (a complete unparished area), Salford (part of a larger unparished area) and Bradford (includes CPs as sub-units within the settlement area) all take the base name and the district area gets relegated to a subsidiary title. And just like parishes, much of the primary data (like population info) is primarily for the administrative area not the settlement.
  2. When the two concepts are clearly distinct, the primary meaning (as in that most commonly understood by people) is the village not the surrounding parish. Furthermore, the village is the primary subject of the Wikipedia article. As a couple examples, consider Widecombe-on-the-Moor and Whitchurch - both on Dartmoor. Widecombe is a reasonably well-known village, and the core of Whitchurch village isn't even in the parish anymore. In both cases, the placename is chiefly assocaited with a settlement not a huge chunk of moorland. In both WP articles, the moorland included in both parishes doesn't even get a mention in either article. And that's despite notable subjects existing in both parishes outside the village (eg Ponsworthy or Vixen Tor). I'd fully expect the majority of people searching for Widecombe-on-the-Moor expects to find media for the village
Point 1 says that, by analogy, the village should come first. Point 2 provides some evidence that that approach is correct, the Commons link from a WP article dominated by the village should be to the category for the village and the village is going to be the most commonly sought for term. That is not to denigrate work put into populating the parish's cat, but an acknowledgement that people after media of a place almost certainly want the settlement and not its hinterland.
A broader discussion is probably best done at the village pump, notifying relevant WP projects is possibly the only way to get an informed consensus. One thing I am certain of is we should pick one, or the other, as primary. Having dabs all over the place is ridiculous. Hatnotes should suffice if the village comes "first", and if the parish comes first the village is a natural sub-cat.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Replied there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor renamesEdit

I've noticed a few moves relating to minor tweaks, which may be problematic in some cases:

  1. Ampersand or "and"
  2. Hyphenation
  3. St in church names
  4. Placement of bracketed disambiguation terms

With regards to these:

  1. "&" and "and" are completely interchangeable, I'd favour "and" in all cases.
  2. The usage of hyphens can be extremely mixed, I wouldn't move a category unless the place is universally known by the other form. If the current form is in common use, its fine even if certain sources use the other form.
  3. When a church is dedicated to several saints, be careful to get format right "St Peter's Church" is fine as is "St Peter's and St Paul's". However "St Peter and Paul's" is not, as "Ss Peter and Paul's" is the correct, plural, short form.
  4. Please don't put brackets in the middle of strings like Category:Worton (civil parish), Oxfordshire, put it at the end!

Also, there's no need to speedy-tag things like Hadley and Leegomery. There is no need to preserve the edit history when it is all that has happened is category adjustment (it only matters with text).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The relevant context being w:WP:COMMONNAME per the Ordnance Survey and Mapit. If they write it in one specific form they I would generally follow that unless there is a good reason not to (such as natural disambiguation) even "and" and hyphens can be mixed (though I did read that WP guidelines generally prefer not to use full stops with St). While CPs change more commonly (but not that commonly) settlement names change rarely see w:WP:NAMECHANGES. In the case of Staines the name was changed (though it could possibly have just been the town council not the settlement) and the newer A-Z road atlas calls it "Staines-upon-Thames" while older editions called it just "Staines" which would seem to be consistent with "but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME".
Fragmenting the edit history makes things harder to track which should be avoided where possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey (or MapIt) are definitely the wrong place to look for the common name, but they can give a sign as to the correct official name. A common name CANNOT be determined from a single source, but is an assessment of usage by the general population.
When it comes to "St." or "St" and "&" or "and", those are exclusively style considerations; there is zero reason to follow the precise form used by a specific source when the two forms are fully equivalent The only real exception is when used in things like book titles.
The choice of hyphens or not, and more substantial changes, fall into the remit of common name. But don't move away from the Wikipedia name without very good reason, and if breaking from WP ensure that it is discussed via a full CFD (as this will alert editors who can make the change on WP too).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Fragmenting a page history is bad yes. But when the edit history is entirely trivial, don't waste admin time with a speedy request. Just do the move via cut/paste.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe for CP names but not generally for settlement names. Why depart from using the name on the OS, isn't it just simpler to just follow the OS unless there is a good reason not to? It would lead to simpler and more stable titles (for a similar reason to UKPLACE rather than having to debate each time whether to use ", England", ", United Kingdom", "(village)" etc.) If you think they should be discussed then I could use the {{Move}} template but I think they are relatively uncontroversial and there are only a few, like around 1 per county and I only have about 11 counties left to check there doesn't seem to be a large problem. CFD is pointless as it is unlikely to get any discussion, if the move template is used you could still notify WP.
Its not hard to make the quick checks and delete the page, the problem is with the software that won't allow moves over redirects, which should be sorted instead! Indeed I'd say this should be fixed with Wikipedia articles to, so that if you want to swap page titles (most commonly with an existing DAB) it wouldn't require admin assistance as it doesn't if you want to usurp an existing article! Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
OS cannot tell you common name as its a single source (no matter how authoritative it is), and if I wanted the "official" name I would look to the Parish Council first in any case. Why deviate from it? A couple reasons to start with: The common name is clearly something else, imagine if the Grimsby was parished and the CP was called "Great Grimsby". Style guidance: "Foo & Bar" is the same thing as "Foo and Bar", but the Wikipedia MOS clearly states that "Foo and Bar" is preferred unless there is a good reason not to, compliance with OS style is not one of those. As an example "St <name>'s Church" is preferred to the more official "Church of St <name>" for both of those factors.
The reason for a CFD instead of a move is simple. You aren't seriously depending on me to do your dirty work for you? Even if I have the inclination, I'm hardly likely to see a {{Move}} in the first place? A CFD WILL be seen by someone, and you can explicitly request changes to WP in that discussion. And those sorts of minor renames can sit around until someone gets to closing the CFD - there's no harm in waiting and as they will be uncontroversial they will get closed fast (by CFD standards).
The software isn't never going to let you move over redirects, as that's an admin level privilege for good reason - if that was done it would be very easy for a vandal to utterly disrupt page histories by moving a few pages around.
Also, please can you check for and correct any double redirect you have created.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not asking for the official name to be used, the Ordnance Survey is a reliable 3rd party source and I would trust it to show the common name (at least for settlements). If Grimsby was parished and we considered that separate categories were appropriate then yes I would use "Great Grimsby" for the parish unless there was a good reason to do otherwise. OK I see the guideline at w:MOS:& so I will follow that.
Then why does the move template exist. I thought the purpus was for partly controversial moves. I was just meaning if you want to notify WP when the move tag is on. How is a CFD any more likely to be seen by someone (apart from it being listed at CFD and appearing in different categories) and generally being around longer. I cannot request changes to Wikipedia as I am banned from there. If you want me to use CFD for every time I move a category to a different form than on WP I will but I think its pointless especially as we are only talking about less that 1% of all places.
Really? why does the software allow someone to move Category:Plymouth to Category:Plymouth, England, which someone could then overwrite the resulting redirect with content for say Category:Plymouth, Kansas (see w:WP:UPT). But it does not allow someone to move Category:Plymouth to Category:Plymouth, England and Category:Plymouth (disambiguation) to Category:Plymouth. My point is that it is commonplace to swap a page with a DAB but only in rare cases should a page be changed to a different page. Any user can preform cut and paste moves or like move Category:London to somewhere and create an irreverent page at the old title! Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
OS is a single source, and you cannot evaluate the common name by looking at a single source. The defining aspect of a common name is that it is common - you need to look at several sources to determine that. If the majority call it something different to OS, then the OS name isn't the common name and it shouldn't be used (eg if OS was the only one to use Great Grimsby, and everyone else used Grimsby). OS will be right most of the time, but there is no way of knowing in advance that OS will always be right.
If you make a note on the CFD that the WP page also needs a discussion, and request that WP is notified, then there is a reasonable chance that WP will be made aware of the situation; as the closing admin should read that request and act on it. If you just move the thing yourself, there is zero chance of WP realising anything has changed (and that they might need to do something about it themselves). That majority of your category moves here will have damaged incoming links from Wikipedia (by making them instead get a dab or a soft redirect), and as you are blocked there you cannot fix those directly. At least give them a chance to do so.
The restriction is against any pages with a non-trivial edit history, and all dabs have non-trivial edit histories. With those restrictions, undoing bad moves is easy (revert to last version before cut & paste). Without restriction, you could easily move Plymouth to London to New York to Pluto; and correcting would be a complete nightmare, particularly with categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I check other sources but I would generally use OS as the determining factor.
I don't want to be accused of asking for changed on my behalf as I have seen that happen even for just blocked users (see w:User talk:Sibbs11#Help me!). When I go through the missing parishes on Wikipedia, I will make these moves anyway. That could be done by using the "move" template. w:Low (band) links to the DAB despite that it went to CFD as did Kells. I think with regard to redirects we need to fix the way they work, I am going to start a discussion at the VP, if it fails then we could just use a bot to fix redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
At last I understand, thanks, I had always wandered why this was, the reason why was because I was only thinking about swapping DABs with articles and hadn't thought about 2 unrelated existing pages being swapped. The reason why the software creates redirects I think is mainly to prevent link rot but moving over redirects probably hasn't been allowed because of what you mentioned. It is just an unfortunate effect of the software that you can usuap pages but not swap DABs but even if this could be done users could swap an A for A (disambiguation) and then B for (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC) And we just had a massive rampage yesterday morning but with no moving pages to other pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Snibston/SnibstoneEdit

Where did the e come from? See http://www.ravenstonewithsnibstonparishcouncil.org.uk/ - perhaps you'd like to write to the Parish Council and tell them of their mistake. Or the Church of England, see https://www.achurchnearyou.com/snibston-st-mary/

I live less than ten miles away and have never seen other than Snibston see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OutsideSnibston.JPG as another example.

From here while Google shows results for Ravenstone with Snibston, all of them use Ravenstone with Snibstone. The Wikipedia article was moved to without the "e" in 2008 useing the reason "spelling" but note that Snibston is in Hugglescote and Donington le Heath. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC) I would also note that the CP was once without the e but the Os and HE also now use the e along with what appears to be most sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC) @Saga City: is it possible that OS has made a typo and it has propagated down or is it an alternative spelling? Would you like me to revert my move? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Milestone 30 on B1368 at Hormead.jpgEdit

It helps if you don't interfere whilst I'm in the middle of going through numerous milestones. I'm having to go for laser eye surgery in the very near future so my vision is somewhat impaired at present and I occasionally mistype, but I can spot a redlink. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed when I was looking at your contribs, will leave alone next time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Police, PolandEdit

Police (city of Poland)? Police (city)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First would probably be best as there are other places called Police even if they aren't cities they may be confused in other languages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Avonmouth wardEdit

The names of File:Bristol avonmouth.png and File:Avonmouth Bristol UK ward map.svg are correct, they show the boundaries of Avonmouth ward from 1999 until 2016, when boundaries changed again and it was replaced by Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston. Peter James (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Hartcliffe had different boundaries to Hartcliffe & Withywood but had missed that with Avonmouth. Have reverted the changes, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Peter James: Do you think that this is also the case with Henbury? I have reverted my request there. There is a recommendation here but no conformation and discussion here that it be extended and renamed so it appears that the ward "Henbury" is former rather than renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Henbury was renamed (or replaced - I'm not sure which or whether it's relevant) at the same time as the boundary changes, which transferred Charlton Mead Estate from Southmead. File:Bristol wards 2016.png shows the new boundaries (or for a more official source there are maps at https://www.bristol.gov.uk/statistics-census-information/new-wards-data-profiles). Peter James (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will just leave it as it is, there doesn't appear to be a need for the former ward if we have a cat for the settlement and one for the current ward. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If a map shows a ward, and that ward is replaced, that media relates to the old ward. It should not be associated with the new ward. The current ward of Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston covers a different area to the defunct ward of Avonmouth. The same is true of Henbury vs Henbury and Brentry. If we have media of a historical unit, and it is in the category for that historical unit, we should not move it. Just ensure it is marked as historical somehow and forget about it.

That's slightly different to CPs, where we would want to try and maintain continuity after a rename. The difference is wards are much more ephemeral.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the media as suggested. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you reverted all edits where the ward has a different name? Like Bishopston?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Now reverted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't been reverted, it's been redirected to a new category with an ambiguous name, Category:Bishopston (ward). Peter James (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion shows, I think, the main reasons we do not generally categorise by council wards. Remember categories are there to help people find things, not to define districts of Bristol, which I think most people will be familiar with rather than wards. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 to that. I'd rather use districts than electoral wards, as even though the boundary is "fuzzy" it doesn't get drastically altered every time there is a boundary review.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Peter James: Why is the CAT Bishopston (ward) ambiguous?, the new ward is called "Bishopston & Ashley Down". Should it just be moved to Category:Bishopston, Bristol? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of the time in unparished areas we don't have ward cats but the districts function rather like settlements in a CP for example Stapleton is in Eastville (ward) just like Rose Green is in Aldwick. I do agree the fact that they change boundaries and name so often is problematic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There is more than one Bishopston...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it, sorry I thought for some reason it was a community not a ward. @Nilfanion: please move Category:Bishopston (ward) to Category:Bishopston (Bristol ward), thanks. Or should it be at Category:Bishopston, Bristol for the settlement instead? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
My preference would be for the settlement/district of Bristol. I've worked in Bristol and wouldn't want to confuse the locals. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There should be a category for the district of Bristol. There may be a need for a separate category for the defunct ward, but if all it will hold is a single locator map, there's no real point - that file could just be directly in the former ward category, never to be seen by human eyes again. Pinging Mattbuck, as he created the majority of ward categories in first place.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussions on CommonsEdit

Please be very careful when you are having a discussion on Commons, that you are actually talking about matters on Commons, and its not really a discussion about Wikipedia in disguise. If that discussion is about geographic naming conventions, it may be off-wiki behaviour in violation of your Wikipedia restrictions.

Your questions at User talk:Crouch, Swale/England are very close to that borderline: You've had a lot of interaction with me on Commons and you've also had some recent interaction with Peter James (talk · contribs) on Commons - so pinging either of us isn't unreasonable per se. However, the only time that Peter James and myself have been the only two people involved, in a discussion about church naming, is when we were discussing the terms of your unban request on Wikipedia. That makes it unseemly. You have indicated it was in response to the comments I made on WP. That makes it close to an outright evasion of your restrictions. If I make a comment on WP about a situation on WP, it should get a reply on WP. If you can't reply on WP within your restrictions, then you can't reply to it on Commons either.

Such behaviour will not result in any formal sanction on Commons, but may count against you getting your WP restrictions relaxed and might even need review by Arbcom on Wikipedia if its severe and frequent.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reason why is because I was responding to the alleged problems of by behavior on Commons. I only pinged Peter James because he responded to your comments about church disambiguation. In reply to the other comment is about why you have been a bit negative about the creations and moves but not about the edit to London. As far as I'm aware WP does encourage people to be bold in making new pages and controversial moves but should also point out about not making large undiscussed changes to a major topic or moving a major topic without discussion. When you pointed about the controversial moved I changed my behavior to reflect this which is similar to finding out a change is controversial and discussing it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As I have said many times on Wikipedia, your problems on Wikipedia were about article creation and moving, which are associated with issues around naming conventions. That is why your restrictions are on article creation and moving, along with discussions on naming conventions. Those are exactly your interests on Commons, and if you cannot separate your unrestricted Commons activity from your restricted WP activity, you will get yourself into trouble on Wikipedia.
Your edit to London was NOT a problem, it was a reasonable attempt to respond to a comment on the talk page. It was reverted not because it was a problem, but because it was poorly implemented (about one district only). Consensus may have then developed further and decided against including that info at all - that's how consensus works. It doesn't mean that your attempt was troublesome, and its unfortunate you are hung-up on it.
Please consider this a friendly warning. If you want to talk to me about a WP matter, talk to me on WP not Commons. If that would violate your restrictions, do not comment at all. I do not want to see you blocked from Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I will but I would remember this comment about not requesting changes as I am banned there. Is the reason why you think the creations/moves were a problem but not the London is because I only did the London edit once while the creations were in large numbers.
It is because it resulted indirectly in me getting banned (even though the initial scrinity was helpful)
Thanks, I will keep things separate where possible (but the part of this thread that talks about Commons may violate the restrictions on WP). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about this particular thread.
Your problem wasn't so much the article creation itself, but the behaviour that went with them. Basically you were blocked because you did not listen to other people, and instead just kept doing the same thing over and over. You carried on, despite requests, warnings and blocks and didn't change your behaviour. If you had stopped and listened to the others you wouldn't have ended up with a ban.
I don't see the London edit as a key event at all. By the time you made it your talk page was already a sea of notifications about article creations (a bad sign), and has a number of warnings (a very bad sign), you were also blocked for the first time in March 2010 (an extremely bad sign). You got a more of all of those, before you started using sockpuppets and triggered your ban.
Do you understand why you were banned from Wikipedia, and why the restrictions have been applied?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the only point was the fact that (as you pointed out) that is brought attention to my problems.
Yes, though I am less sure why the geo NC have been as that was something I only had a small amount of involvement in. Do you agree that when you have asked my to change my behavior on Commons that I have done so (your first point). For example I honestly believed that my moves a year ago with within consensus but when you informed me that they weren't I stopped, that was why I was also surprised of the NC ban. What you are also implying is that had I made similar edits to articles as I did on London then that would have been seen as a problem as well (likely larger). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Naming conventions are something very closely related to moving articles: You'd only move articles if you care about the correct title, and if you care about the correct title on specific cases, you care about them in general. Your colossal move log on Commons, and the pages of discussion prove the relationship between the two. That doesn't mean its wrong, but the two things go hand-in-hand.
With regards to Commons, yes you did change after my message to you. But as you had problems with that on WP before, you will need to show "good behaviour" on Wikipedia before that restriction is relaxed.
Unfortunately you chose to withdraw from that sort of activity after that issue on London - you've really blown incident that out of proportion. There's no way of knowing what would have happened next - its possible it would have been bad, its much more likely it would have been good. As an analogy, consider the following:
The first time you drive a car you park on a hill. You forget the handbrake, and the car starts to roll away. You slam on the brakes, get out, and never drive a car again. If you had carried on driving, would you have kept doing the same and caused a crash as a result? Its certainly possible but probably not? Depends if you learned from the mistake or not.
Same things applies to wiki - its possible bad stuff would have happened after the London edit, but realistically? Not if you listened to feedback.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that. I didn't move for nearly 6 months probably because I didn't really think about NC. They just seemed to work. If someone doesn't care about correct then they can let it move (because it doesn't matter to them) it they do care then they want it to be correct[1]. Commons has a large problem with incorrect titles, mainly on topics that WP doesn't cover, probably because they had nothing to follow. I would like to see all pages on Commons titled correctly, not just topics I'm interested in.
I will also make sure that if there are further problems with my moves here that I correct them (eg by discussing). As I'm sure you know a user is only blocked to prevent further disruption, as this never happened, that's why I wasn't blocked here. Consider for example User talk:Foroa/archive 2011#High Peak where another admin was moving things without discussion after being informed. In this case you did the right thing by reporting it rather than blocking as you were involved.
That was just a one off edit, I know that my behavior was the main factor (not in any way denying that), its just that it did indirectly result in the block. I think w:WP:CIR was a major problem for me. I just wander what would have happened if I had managed to join in 2008, as I had dreamed to.
I agree at least one block in late 2010 would have happened anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:TroedyrhiwEdit

And what are we going to do when we have images for Troedyrhiw in Pembrokeshire? Please don't use Wikipedia policies here; they haven't been discussed here and may not apply. When it comes to any category created by me, it's best to leave it as it is or consult, because I have actually thought about it!!! Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the others, please move it back and create a DAB there. Funny I thought that there was a reason I hadn't moved it last time but didn't notice sorry. WP titling generally applies here, we don't disambiguate unnecessarily. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't trust Wikipedia. Their titles are often incorrect, because they're written by people who are not using authoritative sources. See, for example Tower Building, Liverpool and its Talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The NC still often apply here, if they are wrong then we can correct them here. The other point is that titles need to be less ambiguous than WP due to incorrect cats being added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sheldon ManorEdit

You do know there's also one in Warwickshire, hence the need for disambiguation? Please revert your moves. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I can't find much of one, it appears that there were manors of Sheldon but I can't really find one just called "Sheldon Manor". However there is something here so you are welcome to revert. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. -- ~riley (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@~riley: thanks, I've made a large number of edits here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

About your change to File:"Photographer vodka want" 2014. Joke. Installation. - panoramio.jpg: was it on purpose? I don't see anything old in the image. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that that was what the Panoramio tags were referring to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Category: Bishopstone, SalisburyEdit

Back in 2016 you changed the category to "Bishopstone, Fovant and Chalke Valley". I am curious to know the rationale you used for that change. I am local to this area and both Fovant and Bishopstone are separate villages some few miles apart - as I'm sure you must have realised. Furthermore Fovant is not in the Chalke Valley but in the Nadder Valley with its neighbouring villages, Bishopstone is in the Chalke Valley, together with several other villages not included. There seems on the surface no obvious link between these two villages. I look forward to your comments. With kind regards. Richard Avery (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Avery: I used an incorrect edit summary for the move, what I actually mean was that it is in the ward of Fovant and Chalke Valley, at least the name does contain recognizable info, unlike some wards, however the previous name may have been better, feel free to revert of start a discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: I can see where you are coming from but the electoral ward contains a number of villages that would not mix easily and cause confusion in searches because of their geographical separation. With respect I have now reverted the move to it's former designation. Kind regards. Richard Avery (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wapping PierEdit

Just an information. You've moved the category with this comment: Crouch, Swale moved page Category:Wapping Pier (London) to Category:Wapping Pier: no need for DAB per w:WP:UKPLACE and w:WP:PRECISION BTW: It's Commons, not Wikipedia. --XRay talk 15:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@XRay: The same titling guidelines generally apply here, do you think that the move was wrong? It appears that there is only 1 Wapping Pier, so it should be at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The change was certainly not wrong, but probably unnecessary. Everybody names as he likes, there are no rules like in Wikipedia. So there is also "... (London)" or "..., London" or without location. It is not necessary to rename the category again. But somebody will probably do it in the future. --XRay talk 10:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If everyone names as they like without following guidelines, you end up with arbitrary titles that are incorrect, if everyone titles correctly, no one has any grounds to move once its at the correct name, so its likely to remain at the correct name indefinitely, unless something changes, see w:User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation#Descriptiveness vs. length for explanation on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth should we be bound by Wikipedia policies? We are not Wikipedia. Still less should we be bound by Wikipedia essays, which are statements of opinion by a handful of authors and do not have the benefit of consensus. In this case, there's only one other Wapping in England, in Liverpool, which does not have a pier, so Wapping Pier is the correct name. If the Liverpool Wapping had had a pier, the correct name here would be Wapping Pier, London. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
We have no local guidance on PRECISION so we follow WP's guidance on this, see Commons:Naming categories#Implementation of the principles, yes if the Liverpool Wapping had a pier we would use Wapping Pier, London but it doesn't appear to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Losing informationEdit

That's not a hatnote in the conventional sense, and should be kept. Since not everyone who comes here is as clever (or anal) as you and I, it might be considered a benefit to say "If you are interested, here are some others" (a service, going the extra mile, perhaps). And English Wikipedia policies, I repeat, DO NOT APPLY HERE, so don't cite them as if they have any authority. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The category clearly includes the fact that its for the Isle of Mull Eas Mor, I don't see how there is any difference between this principal and WP articles. Apart from the larger probability of incorrect images landing in the cat. We could "go the extra mile" and add hatnotes to every single category and article but I don't see how that would really help, if you think we should have different guidelines then you should write one here, but there's no need to repeat debates when the consensus on WP is only use them when needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You mean "principle", I think. Not every category should have a hatnote, but ones with similar properties could benefit from them. The consensus on en:WP may well be "only use them when needed", and the lingua franca of Commons may be English, but what of other language Wikipedias? Suppose de:WP, es:WP and fi:WP have inconsistent consensus or guidelines on hatnotes? Why should we prefer one over another? There's no reason to do that. That's only one reason why en:WP policies and guidelines are of little use here. Additionally their currency is articles, and ours is categories. Big difference, and it follows that they should be considered differently. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind". If you want to make Commons dull and characterless, fine. I'm all for making it as helpful as possible. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware most WPs (and other projects) have similar guidelines to the EnWP, only a few like FrWP do otherwise. I would point out that Commons is missing a large number of hatnotes and DAB pages, but I still don't really think that already disambiguated titles need them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
A notable difference I would point out is that w:WP:RFFL doesn't apply here because we are multi language and that unlike w:Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions we probably should add "England" in descriptions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Shetland/Shetland IslesEdit

I presume you've read this. I'm wondering why we are going against consensus now without seeking to change it there? Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

1, Category:Orkney Islands has been at that location for years, 2, I added the {{Move}} tag to Category:Shetland and 3, the name "Shetland" is ambiguous, 4 I'm not convinced that the official or common name is the short name, I will make a move request for both in a while on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Britannica uses "Shetland Isles" while Rhode Island. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move of Category:Nash FarmEdit

I've suggested an alternative name on the category's talk page. Thank you. Fortguy (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

IrelandEdit

Were you going to move all the sub-categories as well? I can help, but I don't want to get in your way. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I don't think moving the sub cats is necessary, look at Category:Museums in Ireland, it is already liked from Category:Museums in Ireland and Category:Museums in Northern Ireland is a subcat, I'd maybe suggest splitting them by moving the content to X in the Republic of Ireland so that X in Ireland also has X in Northern Ireland. To be quite honest I think if I start moving all the sub categories it will just create more problems, Category:Geography of Ireland is in both island and state cats, maybe I should just move all the sub cats of ROI to the island, its just that they are often in "by country" categories which obviously refers to the ROI. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess the problem is partly the template in Category:Museums in Ireland. But also compare Category:Museums in Ireland by county‎ with Category:Museums in Northern Ireland by county‎. There's a lot that needs to be cleaned up, or this will be confusing forever. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO should be propogated down the entire tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the "Ireland" categories to the island, then moved ROI specific categories to the ROI tree, I am in the process of renaming the "by county" categories that also have an equivalent NI. The {{Countries of Europe}} should be updated so that it defaults to Republic of Ireland and falls back to Ireland. I am very surprised that it didn't get more involvement from other users, it has been super controversial on WP and there have been various attempts to make ROI the primary topic for "Ireland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Now discussion at Template talk:Countries of Europe#Ireland Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be more than just the "by county" tree. It needs to be everything, including for example Category:Churches in Ireland photographed in 2009‎.--Nilfanion (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I cannot possibly rename every single of those categories, Nilfanion would you recommend that I reopen the discussion? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You should make every effort to clean up after any change you make, don't just say "that's too much" and leave it to others. There is no point reopening the discussion now, the workload should have been considered before closing. @Themightyquill: Assistance appreciated of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to create work for others, I think I should re open it, I don't want to put that burden on others. I thought it would be possible to just do it on an "as needed" basis. No single user could reasonably preform all of those moves. If its possible to do the same thing with the countries of Europe template as we have done with the US states template, then that will resolve the problem and we can just rename when needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
What the point of re-opening the discussion? The moves you have already made shouldn't be reversed. Instead of going "oh shit this is big" and stopping, just crack on with it.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Can we just fix the {{Countries of Europe}} that would resolve this problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I also thought it had been fixed here but would just take a while to update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't fix the problem. Its a stopgap measure, to keep things functional while the change is being made. Its not the correct final state. If "Ireland" needs to move to "Republic of Ireland", then "Foo in Ireland" needs to move to "Foo in the Republic of Ireland". How about actually working on this (like I have been with NY), instead of moving on to yet another parish tweak?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That is a work in progress, you might as well point out that Category:Hambleton District shouldn't contain many files but it does. Files simply need to be defused into ROI or NI categories from generic Ireland categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope. The difference is Category:Foo in Ireland is actually the category for images of Foo in the country of Ireland at a bad title, its not the category for Foo on the island. The nation state needs the subcategories far more than the island, and its not acceptable to have Ireland as the only country in Europe without a category for its churches.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Buildings in Ireland still links with the Countries of Europe anyway, the only difference is the top level cat, which I added a hatnote to. Maybe we should think about getting a bot to move the categories, and flag any Northern Ireland pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mississippi (state)Edit

Hi.

Do you intend one day to rename all the sub-categories the same way you renamed Category:Mississippi (state) on June 28th (more than 30 categories for the sole n-1 level), or just leave the current mess (and eventually someone else to clean it), especially after your "update" of the US states template that broke all the links for these sub-categories (and your "fix" on July 10th didn't fix anything, as one can see on Category:Architecture of Mississippi, for instance)? Thanks by advance for letting me know. Rhadamante (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the lesson here is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Slavish attention to detail isn't necessarily welcome and this sort of change really does require discussion if you'e going to avoid treading on the toes of other contributors. If you're making MAJOR changes, either gain consensus first or do the whole thing. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've corrected the code now. Transclusions of {{US states}} should now be ok.
To be fair to Crouch, he did attempt to gain consensus first and its not his fault that there was minimal involvement in the CFD. However as his judgement has proved questionable on a few things recently, so he should have let someone else close it. He sorely needs to learn patience.
As for the subcats, I'm not convinced that the majority need to be moved, as most are not ambiguous. "Architecture of Mississippi" can only mean "the architecture of Mississippi state" not "the architecture of the Mississippi River". A category like Category:Fish of Mississippi can only be referring to the state as well (its not Category:Fish of the Mississippi). There may be a few that do need moves. Is consistency down the tree important enough to justify a mass move of thousands of subcats, when its not required for disambiguation?--Nilfanion (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I had fixed it, I followed the layout of New York, indeed the main point was the main category, it was pointed out that most of the sub categories weren't ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

SeasonsEdit

Hi, as I see you have contributed to season discussions before, perhaps you can add any views, advice or any information you have here. It's just a basic question which may or may not have an answer. Thanks Acabashi (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

hello

Nounou 18 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

DesysopEdit

Please note that a prior discussion on COM:AN/U (purely about whether to have a desysop vote) is required before starting any desysop vote. Without this, a bureaucrat will close it without action. Refer to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. You may want to withdraw it and follow the procedure before that happens. Thanks -- (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@: now at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Jcb de-admin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

DisambiguationEdit

Check out: Commons:Village_pump#Disambiguation. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wirral_Urban_DistrictEdit

Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Crouch, Swale".