Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



If I want to split Category:Scotforth should I do the same as I did with Whitchurch, Devon? Its just that you said "Potentially controversial, content split so needs discussion on best solution". Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes a split makes sense there, but I don't know how. The actual terms to disambiguate would be "(civil parish)" for the CP or ", Lancaster" for the suburb. As for which to use? Either one or the other (with first at base-name). Or both, with the base being a dab.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest using (civil parish) for the parish cat as there is an EP as well, the CP would as normal be a subtopic of the place on WP, there seems little risk of miscategorization so a hatnote on the settlement would do, ", Lancaster" for the suburb wouldn't be a good location anyway as the parish is in the Lancaster district but there seems little need for that DAB (as they are one meaning) just a hatnote should take care. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes the parish is still in the district, but "Scotforth, Lancaster" would be understood as meaning Scotforth is part of the town - which is better than anything else and (suburb) should definitely be avoided. The parish and the suburb are two separate meanings, and if a file ends up in one category instead of the other - it would be wrongly placed. Hatnote probably suffices but I'm still not sure what ideal looks like.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes "Scotforth, Lancaster" would be understood as meaning "part of the settlement" but it still does not fully distinguish from the parish for example Category:Claughton, Lancaster is titled as such because its in Lancaster district. The parish and the suburb are two separate topics in the sense that they have separate categories and files need to be placed in the correct one but they aren't separate meanings in the sense that we need to ask a reader what they are looking for (unlike Cookley which are 2 completely separate meanings) thus the hatnote should do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Claughton is wrongly titled - it shouldn't use "Lancaster" but "City of Lancaster", which denotes the district (Or something better entirely, given my dislike of the "city of" names). Yes we do need to ask the reader what they want. The fact they are adjacent (and that a hatnote may be sufficient to inform the reader), doesn't negate the fact these are two DIFFERENT things.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't really think it is, we use the short name for disambiguation (the district page would be titled just "Lancaster" if there weren't other uses like Brighton and Hove is) just like we do for article titles and what would happen to Topsham, Devon if there were 2 in Devon but there isn't a separate category for the district. Would it get "Topsham, Exeter district"? The settlement and parish aren't really different enough for disambiguation (but are different enough for separate categories), its just that they cover different areas. By the same logic Plymouth the settlement and Plymouth the district are 2 different things but we have just decided to combine them. DABs are generally unnessesarry when all the pages refer to the same meaning, in this case Scotforth in Lancashire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The civil parish of Scotforth is an entirely separate thing to the suburb of Lancaster. The common meaning "Scotforth is a place in Lancs" does not align to either of the precise concepts.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes separate enough to have a separate category but they still refer to "Scotforth is a place in Lancs". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. And if someone is looking for the place, which specific meaning do they want?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The suburb, they can then see that images for the parish are in Category:Scotforth (civil parish) just like for London (the settlement) vs London (the region). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm curious you are proposing to split Scotforth into two categories. Some time ago, there were two categories for the village and parish of Goosnargh, but they got merged. Goosnargh is unusual because most of the area of the village lies outside the parish (in the adjacent parish of Whittingham). -- Dr Greg  talk  17:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the parish of Scotforth doesn't include the suburb at all, Skinsmoke (talk · contribs) was who merged Goosnargh. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Nilfanion, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanted your view on something.


So that we don't have to change every single OGL template invocation on Traffic Signs in the future, I drafted the above as possible initial version of a specialist instance of a {{Design rights}} template. However, it would be appreciated, that based on what you said in discussions elsewhere, if you would be willing to assist in tidying up this intended template.

The smaller type section is an attempt to provide some kind of attribution to the original designers, something that other Commons user's appreciate for completeness. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A suite of templates to cover the things separately is generally better. Among other things that makes translation easier, and allows the independent elements to be used sensibly in different cases.
{{Design rights}} should be generic, in line with {{Trademark}}, as it can be applied to a wide variety of situations. As I have said, in this case, there are no design rights to worry about: A picture is not protected by design rights, while a physical sign (like these) might be.
The warning element should also be spun out into a separate thing, {{Road sign}} perhaps? This, like {{Insignia}} can warn that there may be restrictions on certain uses in some countries (eg by the side of the road).
There is no need to mention "Crown copyright", as that's what the OGL template is for, and the attribution elements could be added within the {{Information}} that the files should have--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to edit mercilessly, this is a wiki ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Re generic warning, User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/DesignRightsShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Open Historical Maps

Not strictly Wikimedia related but Buried within some pages at OpenStreetMap I found a link to this:

I have a vested interest here in that I'd like to trace all the railway lines on the New Popular Edition and Seventh Series (as they expire), because the NPE is pre Beeching, and thus has all the closed lines still marked (apart from some really old closures that would be on the Popular edition.).

Would you be interested in a project in this area?

(It's also planned to ask the NRM/National Archives about the ex Railway Clearing House junction maps at some point, because they would be exceptional useful in mapping who owned old railway lines, which is data that could be added to the relevant maps.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This would be a highly valuable project and I've found that several people have independently done the same thing. [1] is the most comprehensive one I've found (as it shows all sorts of minor industrial railways).
Its one I'd like to see developed (specifically in Wikimedia terms of course), but not sure if/how I can best contribute to that sort of thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The map you linked is 'non-free', That's why there's a need for an OpenRailwaysMap of the UK and further afield. (There is an OpenRailMap now, but that's a special rendering of OSM, not it's own thing).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I know its non-free, but its mostly based on the free data that exists. It should be possible to get there with a free project - I'm not sure how useful I would be as a contributor to that; my skills would be more in converting that into use for wiki rather than generating the actual info in first place.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Llangelynnin church and farm, Gwynedd - - 1733356.jpg

this edit by NilfaBot (whose talk page redirects here) looks wrong. This edit added the file to Category:Llangelynin, even though the file was already in a subcategory of this: Category:Llangelynnin, Gwynedd. Presumably the bot was triggered by the "Uncategorized-Geograph" tag, which should not have been present.

Please also see Category talk:Llangelynin. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wallpainting - - 1188286.jpg has the same issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. As far as I can tell this is an unavoidable, but unfortunate, situation. The bot is adding the correct category for the community (based on those listed from Category:Communities in Wales).
The existing cats could be correct and listed as a direct subcat of the target category (like these files), be several levels deep in the category tree (eg Category:Tonfanau railway station) or be in a category that should be subcat of the community's category but isn't (eg Category:Llwyngwril). They could also be incorrect and could be for a location that is miles away or next door.
Lack of categories is a problem, and wrong categories are a major issue. In contrast to those issues, overcategorisation is a mere irritant. There is no realistic way to detect if existing categories are valid subcats, or not, of the category the bot wants to add. With that in mind its better to add it anyway, and leave it for a future review - than skip it and continue to have it as "uncategorised". That is one reason why {{Check categories}} is being left by the bot, the other being to see if subject cats (like church paintings in Wales) need to be added.
With regards to these specific cases, the files shouldn't have had the uncategorized template after you IDed the village - and when the two categories are merged this issue will disappear.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Would you suggest that moving Category:Kilburn should be discussed? While it is disambiguated on EN, it hasn't always been so (it was moved without discussion in 2008) and the London one is a primary route destination and gets nearly 10x the views of the others. Note I moved Blackheath without discussion as while it does get more views the one in the West Midlands is a town and "Blackheath" has always been a DAB on EN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd always allow a discussion if you have ANY concerns - if that's because you think the case is quite weak, or potentially contentious. As a minimum, use a {{Move}} tag. There is no harm in waiting a week to see if anyone objects, and it saves hassle in the long run. Only move immediately, without discussion, when it is utterly uncontroversial (such as to correct a spelling error).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged it, the reason in part is that even I'm not sure if this is necessary. Generally I would assume that if it is disambiguated on Wikipedia it would be uncontroversial. I have also proposed Category:Wick (although probably not controversial, the title has been debated so target might need to be discussed), Category:Ramsgate, Kent and Category:Herne Bay, Kent. I also did Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire a month ago. Note to Blackcat and Auntof6 who might also have interest to them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My thought is, if a thing is not broken, don't try to fix it. What problem should a disambiguation solve? Are there other relevant "Kilburn"s? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. IMO things have to be really wrong with primary topic before I'd look to move. For instance, if the wrong town is at the base name, I'd look to fix that (eg If Category:Sydney was about the Canadian place). In general, primary topic considerations should be treated at as a reason to maintain the status quo, but not to change the status quo.
To compound this, it looks like you are too dismissive of non-UK subjects, and put too high an emphasis on UK civil parish status. That means when the competing term is a minor UK place you see a conflict but when its a minor place elsewhere in the world you don't. IMO Gosforth, Newcastle has a stronger case to primacy (17 bigger, is at WP base name) than Herne Bay, Kent (only 13x bigger, is not as WP base name). Also remember that originality is not a factor in whether the term is primary or not. The original term often IS primary, but that's because of its greater history, not just it came first.
IMO of the 4 you mention here only Wick should be moved, because its the wrong topic at the base name. And a CFD is needed there to confirm the right target for the move.---Nilfanion (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you would agree this was the case with Category:Orpington and Category:Chantry (the latter was created by me)
I don't see how Gosforth has a stronger case to primacy as it is a part of a larger settlement (the other point) unlike Cumbria while Herne Bay is pretty much a separate settlement unlike Herne Bay, New Zealand which is a suburb of Auckland. I don't see how originality shouldn't be a factor, yes it is probably less relevant here than on Wikipedia (as its an encyclopedia) but yet you think where something is, is so so important. You think that Plymouth doesn't need moving yet it gets below 50% of the other pages combined while you don't think Castleford which gets well over 90% (and Idaho (although the Idaho one doesn't derive its name from the West Yorkshire one) only has 2 files unlike West Yorkshire which has hundreds). I could understand if we wanted 20x the ratio was 17x for moving away and 23x for moving or even bigger difference like 15x vs 25x but I think you are putting far too much weight on the status quo. We have people who fix things in a short while anyway (see w:User:Achim55/Links to disambiguating pages on Commons) see w:Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#Arguing the status quo "does no harm" (I'm not saying you are status quo stonewalling but I just think you should be a bit more flexible for change, if you are worried about stability I suggest you think more about outright deletions like on User:Nilfanion/Category deletions see [2] for example.
CFD probably won't see much discussion but if anyone recommends another title (Eg Wick, Scotland) then it could still be discussed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You are still putting undue weight on parish status. The fact Gosforth is today a suburb of Newcastle doesn't mean its lower than the Cumbrian one. Administrative significance is not importance. Originality is a very minor consideration, I'd only really look to it in a tie-breaker setting (and if a tie-break is needed, that means its a draw). The original subject often wins, not because its original, but because its the most important.
I do not think we should have ANY FIXED RATIO (the whole idea is a nonsense). Furthermore we not make ANY MOVE, unless there is actually a problem. That is because any move, no matter how well-intentioned has negative consequences. Demonstrate that keeping the status quo actually causes a problem. In the two extreme cases of Castleford and Plymouth, the status quo is pretty much harmless. Therefore why move? What problem does either move fix? AFAICT, none whatsoever.
I am asking you to be flexible, and instead of trying to move to a single consistent layout. Just accept things as they are, even if that causes inconsistencies, and only move if there is a real need to do so. For a media repository, like Commons, stability is far more important than consistency.
The advantage of a CFD for Wick is it allows options to be investigated (even if no-one says anything and it goes to the initial idea).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
To add, Orpington and Chantry look correct. As rule-of-thumb I'd suggest asking two questions: 1. Is is there a topic at the base name? 2. If yes, is there another topic that is more important than that one? If you get the answer yes to both questions, then move (and put a dab at the base). Otherwise no move.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying that the suburb is less important that the village, it isn't. I was just saying it isn't significantly important enough to be at the base name.
I am not trying to give a strict amount but just a guideline about an amount that is generally expected.
I still don't think the status quo is that important, I would generally suggest just using it in a tie-break. Maybe a test of if the move was being proposed the other way would it be more than merely questionable.
Do you think Wick should go to CFD to determine the best target? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If Gosforth isn't more important than Gosforth, why on earth is Herne Bay more important than Herne Bay? (And consider that original Herne Bay is the bay not the town). I'd put both pairs of places in the same category.
Stability is much more important on Commons than Wikipedia. The whole point of Commons is to be a media repository for everyone, not just Wikipedia - and we need to prevent link-rot as much as is humanly possible. We can fix some incoming links in the aftermath of a move, but some things we can't fix at all (the extreme is a webpage reference in a book).
Because of that greater weight against link-rot, the reverse-move test is not really appropriate for Commons. To use Orpington as an example, if the town was at the base-name I'd be fine with that and would oppose moving it to the dab. I'd also be fine if the dab was at the base-name already, and would oppose a move. If the chicken was at the base-name I'd support moving that (as you have done), and clearly I'd oppose moving the chicken back. I'd also oppose moving the town to the base now - as to do so may break links for those after chickens.
Consistency matters but is less significant. For instance, if I was to create something new of course I'd have a consistent layout (as I have done with the Scottish parishes). As I have said before, if I was to start this place over I would probably be overzealous on disambiguation as that gives a more consistent layout long-term - but it doesn't mean I'd try to make changes on it now.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I was not trying to say that the Newcastle one was not more important than the Cumbria one, only that it isn't more important enough to be at the base name, noting as I pointed out about the Cumbrian one being separate. In this case the Kent one contains pages for the bay and the town (see File:Curved Sea wall and Promenade, Herne Bay - - 1470421.jpg) as an example. Even if there were separate categories the town is probably more well known that the bay so we probably shouldn't have the bay at the base name. In the case of the NZ one vs the bay and town (in 1 cat) the Kent is obviously more important.
Link rot is indeed something I try to prevent which is why I re created the Kings Cliffe category. However when I move something I either leave the redirect along (like Category:Corfe Castle, Dorset) to allow the links to be corrected or I turn into a DAB and then they can easily be corrected. If they are deleted or changed to a totally different topic it makes correcting links difficult. With Gosforth as a DAB people can correct links but they couldn't if it was deleted or redirected elsewhere (to Cumbria for example) or turned into something else (Australia for example).
As a side note what about Willian was about the place then about the footballer therefore a DAB was probably appropriate. Boston was about Lincolnshire [3] [4] for nearly 7 months.
Although we are not starting from scratch we can make moves now so that we don't have problems in the long run (Plymouth for example), I agree we don't have to be overly consistent though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
How is the Kent Herne Bay obviously more important than the NZ one, while that case isn't true for Gosforth? There isn't that big a difference between the two Gosforths and the two Herne Bays. It certainly isn't so extreme that Gosforth needs to move from primary-at-base to dab-at-base, while you are proposing the reverse at Herne Bay. For that to be the case, I'd expect to see a MUCH more extreme variation between them.
The only difference I can see is the secondary terms: Gosforth, Cumbria is of interest to you (as a English CP), while Herne Bay, New Zealand isn't (its not in Britain).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I said that Gosforth, Tyne and Wear is also more important than the Cumbria one. Herne Bay, Kent is both more populated and more of an indipendant settlement.
The test isn't supposed to be subjective, if that was the case would have I moved Category:Chantry to Category:Chantry, Suffolk? in this case the place is more interest to me (being from Suffolk) than the religious term (I'm not religious). Likewise I think it is highly UK/geographically centric that w:Reading (process) isn't at the basename. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My point here is its absurd for you to argue that Herne Bay is so much more important that it should be moved to primary, when at the same time believing that Gosforth is sufficiently unimportant to move from primary to a dab. Furthermore its easy to make a stronger case for Gosforth (bigger population gap and it is at the base on WP). You could consistently argue both at primary, or both at dab. But to want both of those moves is completely illogical. Please withdraw the Herne Bay proposal and reflect on this.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not withdrawing Castleford. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't that withdraw that one, as people have supported both options even if you did change your mind. In addition, you can make a consistent logical case, as the West Yorks one is obviously orders-of-magnitude more important. Somehow I doubt you will get the outcome you seek there - mainstream Commons thinking is removing ambiguity = good, adding it = bad (Auntof6's views are mainstream),
I know my opinion is some way off that mainstream, which is why I would not close any discussion on that sort of topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes as I pointed out above decisions need to be objective, for example its reasonable to assert that the colour Pink could only ever be at Category:Pink not Category:Pink (singer). As well as long term significance, the colour is a far more global topic, nearly everyone knows what it is while only if you are American or interested in singing, you might think of the singer, hence why I moved Chantry and try to give nouns and adjectives priority.
I too would not close any similar discussions unless they were ridiculous like making Category:Plymouth about Category:Plymouth vehicles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Plymouth vehicles -> Plymouth would be wrong but isn't ridiculous (judging from comments on en, that is what some people think of when they hear "Plymouth"). That sort of proposal should run its course. Ridiculous would be London, France -> London.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's the point I was making, if you are "involved" or are not impartial (although a closer does need to have some understanding) with a former discussion like a CFD then you shouldn't close [5] except for ridiculous proposals. As Plymouth vehicles are clearly not primary for Plymouth, I would have the confidence to close such a discussion and I'm sure you would to. That's even more the case in the London/France example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You missed mine though: The Plymouth move would clearly be incorrect, but its not so far from sensible as to be "ridiculous" and therefore deserve an early closure by a non-admin like yourself. That should be left open and your best action would be a reply showing why that move is clearly wrong. The London move would be "ridiculous".--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I suppose maybe that one would be better left but proposing to move "France" to "London" would be so silly that it could be closed by you or I (as we both could be seen to be "involved"). Now if it was London, Ontario>London then I would still have the confidence to close that though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You made a good point earlier about Orpington. As Category:Wymondham is about Wymondham, Norfolk then it should be OK (as the Norfolk one is a lot larger and is a separate town). If the cats were at Category:Wymondham, Leicestershire and Category:Wymondham, Norfolk then it might be OK to move the Norfolk one to the base name (but maybe not as borderline and no substantial benefit) but if Category:Wymondham was about Wymondham, Leicestershire then Category:Wymondham should be renamed to Category:Wymondham, Leicestershire and a DAB created. However we probably wouldn't just start (or move to) a page on the Norfolk town (or at least not for several months) because links would be in the wrong place but doing this on Wikipedia is less problematic.
On another note where a less important topic is naturally referred to but another name, like the MA city being commonly referred to as "Cambridge, Massachusetts" then there often isn't a huge problem with the more important topic (the English city) being at the base name (although I do see a possibility to move Cambridge) but where a more important topic, the Mississippi River is naturally referred to it can cause problems due to readers looking for it or uploads. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

New CPs

I am currently adding parishes by county and district as you know, however just in case I have missed any what new CPs have been registered with OS between October last year and now (I can't find the place where you find new CPs)? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OS has now released the May 2017 boundary set. There are a number of re-alignments that, in addition to the following more drastic changes:
  1. Devon - East Devon - West Hill CP split from Ottery St Mary CP
  2. Hertfordshire - Three Rivers - Batchworth CP created from part of the unparished area
  3. Lancashire - Lancaster - Aldcliffe with Stodday CP created from part of the unparished area
  4. Shropshire - Shropshire - Abdon and Heath CP created from merger of Abdon CP and Heath CP
  5. Wiltshire - Swindon - Several changes
    1. The unparished area and Nythe CP abolished
    2. Blunsdon CP and St Andrew CP created from Blunsdon St Andrew
    3. West Swindon CP, Central Swindon North CP created from the unparished area
    4. Cental Swindon South CP created from the unparished area and part of Chiseldon CP
    5. Nythe, Eldene and Liden CP from the unparished area and Nythe CP
  6. Wiltshire - Wiltshire - Roundway CP abolished, and incorporated into Devizes CP
I'm pretty sure that's all of them.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have made the relevant changes. Has Wales had any new communities since May/June last year? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of (same dataset).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We were also missing Category:Langdon, Kent which was deleted last year. Its a good job I'm going through them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Cantley, Limpenhoe and Southwood also appears to be new and Brierley which has been abolished (another one for User:Nilfanion/Unparished areas). Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Noted. I'm sure there's other plenty of other adjustments needed still. Feel free to fix as you find them, there's no need to let me know while that's in progress. If its not obvious from the categories, give me a message when its finished, as I can tidy up any loose ends (like the maps) at that point.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
...And just noticed another problem with your edits here. The two you mention are quite different: Brierley has been abolished so is a former parish, alongside other recent abolitions (eg Letchworth) or historic ones (Manchester and Liverpool). However Cantley is NOT a former parish, as the parish still exists with a new name. Ideally, the old name would simply redirect to the new. As that's not an option because of the village, do NOT list Cantley as a former parish. By doing so, you are falsely implying that Cantley CP was merged with adjacent parishes, when the only thing that changed is the name.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
First thank you for the point, yes if they have simply just been renamed the old name shouldn't be described as "former". However Cantley CP was smaller before it absorbed Limpenhoe and Southwood in 1935 so arguably the pre-1935 parish of "Cantley" is former (just that it should have originally have been called "Cantley, Limpenhoe and Southwood" in 1935), however to avoid complication I will just remove the cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO the entire former tree is of very limited value, and probably should be deleted. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield were all CPs at some point in the past, but those boundaries have no relevance today (in none of those cases do they correspond to modern units). If those categories are used as a proxy for "real" categorisation into current areas that's a bad thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (with it being a "waste of time"), we have w:Category:Former civil parishes in England and we also have former counties (Like Category:Cumberland so there seems no reason we can't do it on a parish level here (though I do agree that ones like Manchester have little value as a former CP). Yes problem might arise if we are categorizing locational images by former parish if they have changed boundaries. The best think I'd say about them is having maps of them like File:Derbyshire UK parish map highlighting Ingleby.svg. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Former CPs are only really of interest if we have media specifically about the former parish, and not merely photos of things in the area covered by the parish. We are much less likely to have maps for ex parishes (eg there is no chance of me creating them).
You can spend time on former stuff if you want, but I see near zero value to it hence the "waste of time" comment. There's plenty of much more productive tasks out there (eg completing the current CP tree, making the Scottish CP tree functional by assigning the location cats into it, fixing the town/village cats...). However, if you introduce inaccuracies like with Cantley I will object.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I am mainly focusing on current CPs, the reason I origionaly created it was to categorize pages that still had content from recently abolished parish (eg Category:Grafton, Cheshire) rather than older ones. I created Category:Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway today but I couldn't find any CP detail probably because they have limited functions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure if it is a good idea to send minor topics like Roborough to CFD as I doubt it will get any participation from anyone else within a reasonable amount of time. Given that the Newcastle upon Tyne one hasn't had any outside participation and Georgia and New York haven't I very much doubt Roborough will, wouldn't it have been better to just discuss on the talk page rather than having to wait years for it to be closed? I think I might suggest a better ways of dealing with categories (at the village pump), something similar to w:WP:PROD but also used for moves as well (to see if anyone objects within a month or so). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason for conversion of Roborough to a CFD there is to prevent the risk of a drive-by closure: The admin can see the need for disambiguation and close on that basis, without even checking the talk page. A CFD prevents that, as they will have the full discussion in front of them when they close. There is never a problem with things taking longer than needed ever. And process-creep? Hell no. The problems on Commons are not fixed by creating new processes (which instead spread attention further), but by getting more people involved. If anything fewer processes might help.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
But do we really need to wait what could be years to move an uncontroversial minor topic (especially as you agreed that disambiguation was sensible in this case) when we could have simply discussed the target on the talk and made the move once agreed. I would only resort to CFD when there is no consensus on the talk page. In any case do you agree with my suggestion with ", South Devon". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to wait years, but there's no need to rush it. Even if it takes months it doesn't hurt anyone. A talk page discussion is no good with your current editing pattern (or mine), as a bout of intense activity every few days doesn't allow a discussion to take place in the time available, as an admin might peremptorily close it after a week. "south Devon" (UKPLACE mandates lower case when using cardinal direction) is a possible disambiguator for Roborough, but I'm not totally happy with it. I'd rather wait a while and see if someone can come up with a better suggestion.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest a few months is about right for most discussions here, as you know most discussions on Wikipedia only last a week but I think on a mulit-language project that's far too short, I don't see why discussions on Wikipedia maybe should go on for more like a month by default but maybe because it can be disheartening for its editors. I admit I do have a tendency to rush things a bit though, we will see what others say in the next few months. I will update my recommendation per your comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Local ambiguity

I have come across Category:Finsbury Park vs Category:Finsbury Park, London. The title of the latter is quite clearly wrong as the park is also in London (the settlement appears to be a subsidiary meaning). I would have moved it to Finsbury Park (suburb) but you suggested here that that should be avoided. Maybe this should be discussed on WP first or do you think I should just move it to Finsbury Park (suburb) or do you have another suggestion. I would go further that what you suggested here as for example Category:Hyde Park, London is a park not a suburb. If there were multiple lakes in England called "Windermere" and the town didn't exist surely the lake in Cumbria would be at "Windermere, Cumbria" (I think there was some objection based on people thinking the lake is "Lake Windermere"). If the town didn't exist but disambiguation was thought to be needed then it might be placed at "Windermere (lake)" or "Windermere, Cumbria". The w:Sandown Castles and Halton Castles are disambiguated by county so there's no reason why that couldn't apply to Corfe Castle. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Suburb is a bad choice, as suburb has no clear meaning in the UK and worse its POV-laden - when a place is described as a suburb it can imply it is "just a suburb". More importantly, if you can describe a place as a suburb, you can invariably describe it as something else. In a heavily urbanised area, "district" is possibly the best term (there is no confusion with the administrative concept).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have moved it to Category:Finsbury Park (district). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussions

I would like to make some suggestions based on recent discussions.

With subsidiary meanings like Canterbury or Bury I don't think there is a need to disambiguate further (like what has been done with Wakefield) my point about not allowing incomplete disambiguations is against different topics, in the case of Linley there are 2 different places in Shropshire so "Linley, Shropshire" while in the case of the district it is a subtopic of the town (even though the district contains the town) so images added for the wider district aren't in completely the wrong place. Images added for Bury, West Sussex are because it is a different topic. I would note that only Wakefield has been titled this way, Category:Dudley, West Midlands, Category:Scarborough, North Yorkshire and Category:Boston, Lincolnshire etc use the normal format. Category:Salford and Category:Sunderland also did until I reverted the moves.
With category redirects I have started a discussion here your input could be useful there. This is a point about fixing the software not refraining on moving categories because category redirects are problematic.
When the discussion involves primary topics I would suggest that the case always needs to be made for the topic to be primary while it is fine to keep a page at the longstanding title when moving because of that topic alone (like Category:Color to Category:Colour) unless there is consensus to move. In the case of primary topics there needs to be at least some consensus that the topic is primary, not just a lack of consensus that it isn't. In the case of Plymouth I provided evidence and so did you of it being primary so the case for primary topic has been shown to some extent. I do however believe that some bias towards the status quo is helpful to prevent many unnecessary borderline moves that will break external links. For internal ones we should note the category's WP article or use Wikidata so that links don't constantly need fixing.
You didn't reply to my comment on the New York discussion. I would ask why we need a DAB there as the city and the state refer to the same place. While "New York" would be understood to be the city by most people outside the USA readers looking for the city and files uploaded for the city won't be in the wrong place as the state contains the city (even though the state doesn't appear to be a subsidiary meaning of the city). Just because an important topic is split into multiple categories doesn't mean there needs to be a DAB at the base name any more that if the 2 topics were merged (see w:WP:DABCONCEPT.
Primary topics should be assessed objectively using both criteria, not just what we are interested in/expect to find. In the case of Reading (and Wells) i think the verb is primary due to its long term significance even though the English town is an interest to me. There is a California in Ipswich but I know that globally (and even in Ipswich) the original US state is primary. With topics that aren't directly called the particular term I would suggest that it is something to take into account with a term that already has full matches but should not prevent a full match where there is only one. I know that that was a problem I had on Wikipedia was I often only took into account places in England and ignored other uses. Commons is global so if a term is ambiguous even an 1 context then it should probably be DABBed sooner like Bolton where there are multiple even in England.
With NC I usually follow then unless it is not possible (like Cofe Castle) of there is a good reason (Liverpool might be better disambiguated with England) for example. With your comment about Category:Stoke, North Hayling, Hampshire I'm not familiar with using island and it doesn't mention anything about it at UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply to all of your comments, nor should you expect it; I will only reply if I deem it necessary! It doesn't help that many of your comments are difficult to understand or off the point. For example, this doesn't say if you actually agree with the proposed move or not, and that's the whole point of that discussion. If you re-read your comments before you post them, you could make them half as long and twice as clear.
In many ways, New York is the same as Salford. In both cases, the two most important meanings overlap. However, the state of New York and New York City are different, just as the urban area of Salford and the district of Salford are different. The geographical overlap is irrelevant. In both cases, the geographically narrow meaning (the city) is the meaning most people looking for media will be after. However people uploading media (and, worse, categorising) are prone to use the geographically larger meaning (the district/state). To give one primacy over the other leads to problems: Either people looking for the city get the wrong thing (as happens with New York) or people/bots categorising use the wrong category (as happens with Salford). If we should always seek properly disambiguated terms, and if there is not an overall primary topic, use those. The "City, County" vs "City of X" style used for English districts is extremely poor and should be thrown away. You have to know WP conventions to know which, as both terms could be sensibly applied to both meanings.
When it comes to disambiguation number of alternative subjects is irrelevant. The fact there are several Boltons in England is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the significance of the "other" Boltons. Look at the heavily discussed Plymouth: Plymouth, California or Plymouth, Ohio were not discussed by either side, as they aren't pertinent. The actual discussion, centred on the other significant meanings (ie Massachussetts, the car, Montserrat) and if those have enough significance combined to "win" over the English one. The case for disambiguation is not strengthened by the dozens of minor Plymouths.
Naming conventions are not hard rules, and will not cover rarer cases. Islands are a very clear and well understood geographic entity so are natural choices for disambiguation. Islands are rare in England, so WP hasn't really encountered sufficient cases to need explicit guidance on them for England. They are much more common in Scotland, so WP has explicit instructions to use them. With the Stoke on Hayling Island, the first choice (Hampshire) isn't available. The normal second choice (Havant) is also bad, as Stoke, Havant suggests it is in the town of Havant (like West Leigh, Havant or Stoke, Plymouth). The key benefit of using Hayling Island is it is a much better understood area than North Hayling CP so its natural to use it in preference to both North Hayling and Borough of Havant.
Your recent work on disambiguation pages is still biased toward England, despite me telling you before not to do so. Do not ever use "England" and "Other" as equal-level headings. Always treat all countries as equally. This is the sort of structure you should use. If you want to split the English meanings out, it is not acceptable to leave the Canadian and US meanings mixed up.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it should be moved or not, I was mainly referring to your comment about where it should go.
People wanting to read about the city can filter through the state category. We are trying to avoid people landing on different topics. Salford was shortly a DAB here until I reverted it with ", Greater Manchester" used.
Yes the important meanings often are the real push but if there are many meanings people will be inconvenienced looking for them. Look at Birmingham and Perth where there is only 1 other major meaning so probably 99% of people want 1 or the other.
They are not hard rules but are simpler to follow. I will propose moving Category:Stoke, Havant to Stoke, Hayling Island, like on WP which I agree is more natural.
I apologize for that. The reason why is that you pointed out on my talk page to divide up DAB pages as there were only many in England, look at the (now deleted) version of the original DAB at Bolton (which listed the surname first! per w:WP:DABORDER) and the original version. Are the DABs of New York, Georgia, Bury and Memphis acceptable? (I think all should be moved which I will discuss with Auntof6 but should still be discussed with the move template or CFD). As I pointed out, I think Category:Reading Category:Wells should remain at the base name but you can propose moving them if you want. I think moving those might show bias towards English geography. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Its not about people trying to read articles its about trying to look for images. Saying they can get to NYC via the State is true, but isn't helpful to them. You may as well say you ought to get to Southend by going to UK then England then Essex before you find it (some people will). It not that easy to get to Category:New York City from Category:New York by the sub-categories.
The number of meanings is completely irrelevant. Its only important meanings that count. If the current primary gets 10,000 people, and 5,000 people want a single secondary meaning they might matter. The fact there are 20 other terms all of which are wanted by 2 people each - sure there's inconvenience to 40 people, but we worry about what's best for the 99.5% first.
All WP guidance is a rule-of-thumb. Its not policy, even on WP. What is policy for WP is WP:IAR. The good way interpret that is: Not every situation is written down, nor should you expect it to be. There's always a case we haven't thought of yet. If you find one, you have to use your own best judgement. If you aren't comfortable with making judgements yourself, stick to cases where the guidance is established.
The other dabs look fine. You can stick to alphabetical in a single list, but when you start grouping you must group equally and not favour one region.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
But they are only different topics which are clearly related. A better example is that people typing in "Cambridge" or "Liverpool" should expect to find the broad meanings of these, not just the university or the football team (DABCONCEPT). Yes I accept it isn't that easy, in this case the direct hat will probably do.
Yes generally but it is useful to consider with hatnotes (as you pointed out with "what's best for the 99.5% first"), when you have 2 or 3 meanings (or 2 common meanings like Perth) hatnotes generally work better than a DAB page as you save mouse clicks but with a topic with more that 4 you have to have a DAB and you doubly inconvenience people looking for the other meanings.
Yes I agree we need to know when to IAR but if you IAR too often, you will end up with instability as things will change every time someone IARs.
Thanks, in the case of Memphis I gave the city in Tennessee precedence after Egypt and with Boston I also gave the band precedence as well as the English town. The district had to be listed under as it is a subtopic of it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hatnotes are for an important secondary topic (one click from the primary). With many insignificant topics, but a clear primary, the best thing to do is have a primary and then send the minority via the dab. In the hypothetical I gave, 10,000 get the right thing first time (0 extra clicks), 5,000 get there via the hatnote (1 extra click each), and 80 need to go via the dab with 2 clicks - a total of 5,160 excess clicks. Having a dab means everyone needs one click to get where they want - a total of 15,080 clicks. By improving the experience for 80, you make matters worse for 10,000. That's why lots of minor subjects don't matter. There could be 6 Boltons in the world, or 5,000. I don't care about that. I only care if any of them are actually important, and are even close to rivalling "THE" Bolton.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is why when there are many other topics, the main one needs to be overwhelmingly more likely than the others combined. In terms of English geography bias, this and this and this etc aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is arguably the case with Bolton. If the base name on WP is a dab (eg Settle or Newtown), I'm inclined to dab here. If there is a primary, and it has been questioned at all (eg Plymouth or Dover), it makes sense to question it here. If its never been challenged on WP, I wouldn't worry about it. Not now, not when we have lots of open discussions on the first two categories. Lets get them resolved. Then we can work out how to expand them. More discussions with the exact same issues, but on a different case, are not helpful.
As an aside, you've overloaded the Bolton dab now. The dab should only list things that are ever called just Bolton, not just things that happen to include the word Bolton. eg John Bolton is relevant as he may be referred to as just "Bolton". Bolton Wanderers are sometimes referred to as "Bolton" so the Football Club counts too. However, Bolton Abbey is not relevant as its never called "Bolton".--Nilfanion (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Well Kenton has never been questioned on WP for example, even though Kenton, Ohio is probably more important (unlike Plymouth VS Plymouth, MA), Mansfield was moved and reverted while Boston has been repeatedly discussed. Out of those 3 which do you think has the strongest claim and which the weakest.
Because its common to include specific part title matches (see w:WP:PTM) in this case "Abbey" is the equivalent to "North" with "Bolton" being "Carolina". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about these. There are already a LOT of open cases, and opening more will not help getting a resolution.
If you actually read the guidance on partial matches it makes it clear that Bolton Abbey should not be included on Bolton (or on Abbey). "Add a link only if the article's subject ... could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context" Is Bolton Abbey ever called Bolton? No? Then don't include it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Read the bit starting with "Place names are often divided between a sp..." Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep generic and specific. Things like Great/Little, North/South and Old/New are generic. Abbey isn't, or Bridge, or Houses or... Those are all specifics.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
And Bolton is.
With regard to DABCONCEPT we could link the subtopics in the description. For Barnsley you can compare views for South Yorkshire and the different meanings combined and see that the one in South Yorkshire gets over 62x the others combined to show a primary topic for "Barnsley". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact that Bolton is one sort of thing doesn't mean Abbey is the other sort. The key fact is you could legitimately describe Higher Ashton and Lower Ashton as just "Ashton" (and the Devon places of those names are indeed in Ashton CP), but you wouldn't call Bolton Abbey just "Bolton". Bolton Wanderers belongs on the Bolton dab. Bolton Abbey doesn't.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
1 Bolton Abbey is not in another Bolton (like Lower Ashton is), if it was in another one, it wouldn't be appropriate to list it then. 2 w:Bolton (disambiguation)#United Kingdom lists it. 3 I removed images in Category:Bolton intended for Bolton Abbey in January 4 Anyway the bar for inclusion on a DAB is lower that that to disambiguate (for example you said that there was a "risk of confusion with North Mundham" with my move of Category:Mundham). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have clearly explained why I believe Bolton Abbey doesn't belong on that dab above. The only point you have brough up that's remotely pertinent is 2 - but the fact it is there on WP may just be because WP isn't following its own guidelines. Bolton Abbey was added because an invalid reason (its "similar") not a valid one (a partial match of the type that needs to be included). w:London (disambiguation) is analogous - where's London Apprentice or London Colney?
Save yourself the effort of trying to persuade me (you won't) and do something productive like helping with these instead.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
What about point 4. I am dealing with images like Panoramio as I go, Category:Marlborough is probably one that needs DABBing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Not relevant to Bolton Abbey, relevant to North Mundham - as unlike "Abbey" "North" is a valid term to consider in a partial match.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
OK then, if it was "North Bolton" then it would be OK, I suppose that they may be seen as qualifiers like "upon Tyne" is for Newcastle. I still think its OK to include it but I don't really have a problem either way so I'll leave it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice on clipping please

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I have managed to work out how to clip a shield & save as svg in middle of box in Inkscape, but when I try to upload to commons, I get only a blank shield. Please advise what I may be doing wrong, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, could you upload your working SVG (even if its not displaying right). I will look at that in the morning, along with File:BordureEngrailed svg-element.svg.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lobsterthermidor: OK I've got that working now - see the extra versions I have uploaded for File:BordureEngrailed svg-element.svg. The issue is the white rectangle with the shield cut-out. For clip to work, the shape used for the mask over the desired area (ie it needs to be the shield, not a cut-out around it). I've adjusted the file slightly to make things easier and have uploaded two versions, one is a "working" file, which displays identically to your original, and you'd be able to use in exactly the same way as you have done. The second is the output.
To get from one to the other, you need to do the following:
  1. Select all the shapes
  2. Object -> Clip -> Set (this will clip to the shield outline)
  3. File -> Document Properties -> Resize image to drawing or selection (to make the image the correct size)
Then you can save and you're done :)--Nilfanion (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. (I didn't use the "rectangle framed" shield for my attempted clip upload, I just use that for versions exported as png to Paint to be cropped.) I see what you did with the File:BordureEngrailed svg-element.svg, and how it can now be unclipped, useful, thanks. I went ahead as you suggested and uploaded to commons my clipped svg image, namely File:PlymouthArms svgVersion.svg (see below left) which looked like a blank shield on the Special:Upload page, but I uploaded it anyway, and it uploaded fine, colours a bit washed out compared to png version, in my opinion, but it worked. Obviously it would be nice to see the image on the Special:Upload page before proceeding to upload, but I think we're getting there, many thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
png version cropped on Paint
svg version
Ok, the problem with the washed out colours is transparency. Unfortunately the SVG has a entire has transparent background - outside the shield, on the white elements of the shield and within the green of the saltire. I'll have a look to figure out the problem and try to fix.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lobsterthermidor: OK fixed now. I made a few tweaks:
  • In g6979 (the group with the entire shield in): Removed opacity:0.86000001.
  • Within g6362: Made a copy of layer1-9 and placed it above g6058.
  • In path3171 (the newly copied layer): Changed fill:none to fill:white
The first step removes the translucency from the saltire, while the other two steps are needed to get the background white instead of transparent.
The blank preview on upload is a limitation of the software. The code looks overly complex and could be simplified - resolving that is tricky but would sort out the preview image.
One suggestion to try and avoid issues with transparency is put a magenta rectangle (or another strong colour) below the shield as you work. If you do that, then a bit of the image that should be white will show as white and a bit that should be transparent will show as magenta. Then when you remove the rectangle, you can be confident its fine.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
OK figured out the reason for the blank preview: The issues was the clippaths did not contain a single path element, but a nested path element (a <path> within a <g>). Removing that particular bit of nesting fixed the problem. All the other tweaks in my 2nd version are code optimisation and don't matter much.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Nilfanion/Archive 5".