User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Former communities in Gwynedd

A tag has been placed on Category:Former communities in Gwynedd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is because strangely Porthmadog was merged and then became a community again. It can be deleted, if later some others turn up it can be re created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Go Transit

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mold

Could you hold off on the moves you've been making related to mold? Those kinds of moves are going to require consensus. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: by "moves" I presume you mean disambiguating the links, I've finished anyway, there are 4 tagged with {{Dn}} which I'm not sure of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the disambiguation work. I recently edited 44 articles about Mold, Flintshire which were mislinked to Mold (fungus) – example. You may be interested in User:Certes/misdirected links#Places, which lists similar fixed problems. I'm sure there are many more still waiting to be found. Certes (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: yes that was what my statement of "There were also 44 incorrect links for the town in Wales" at Talk:Mold (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 April 2020 was referring to. See my contributions on 21 April which was the cleanup of links from the move, although most links were indeed for the fungus meaning there were also a significant minority for the casting meaning. I thought you would come across this move when patrolling DAB RMs and I didn't ping you since that might be seen as canvasing. Like the Bury move it was questioned after being (correctly) closed and this time it was noticed by someone noticing my fixing of the links (as opposed to the Bury one being noticed from appearing on DPL). The discussion is at User talk:Buidhe/Archive 6#Move review and I do intend to take it to move review but I'm giving the closer another few days to think about it. Although I think there is probably a reasonable case for the fungus being primary (by current PT criteria) I don't think it should have been closed as no consensus after the previous consensus to move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't patrol dab RMs systematically; I just consider speaking up when the hosting talk page appears on my watchlist or I stumble across it in another way. I didn't notice the Mold discussion until it had closed and even then just skimmed it, not even noticing that it linked to my own contributions! With about 50% of views (I've not checked other criteria) I'd say that Mold is a marginal case where one could (and did) argue for either the claimed PT or a dab at the base name. On the other hand, in most of the world, the word primarily means "Welsh town" and the article at Mold may be a surprise. North American readers thinking of manufacturing or cookery "molds" may be equally surprised. On balance I'd have !voted for a dab (as I usually do) but it's not a clear-cut case. As for the actual RM, there are significant numbers of Oppose !voters (though mainly Americans and biologists), and they do have credible arguments. I've never closed an RM, let alone overturned one, but my verdict so far is "not obviously wrong". Certes (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I do patrol RMC frequently and contribute mainly to those involving disambiguation. I don't think the fungus article is a surprise and I'd actually expect the fungus to be called "mold" while the manufacturing (and cookery) to be spelled "mould" but my Oxford Dictionary gives "Mold" to be US for "Mould" and the entry for "Mould" gives (for the noun) the container, then the distinctive style and then the fungus meaning. And yes it got a lot of arguments from biologists and Americans on the 2nd week because the person who asked for it to be re-opened notified the projects[1][2]. I was going to add that to the discussion but it was closed before I could. I'd also note that Category:Mold and Category:Flint are DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Case sensitivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friendly Fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed, it was an intentional link that ideally would be left plain without piping through the redirect since its talking about case sensitivity in searching on Wikipedia but since it will show up on DLP I have linked through the Friendly Fire (disambiguation) redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Prefixing AD to 3-digit dates

Per this comment, if you don't object can you go ahead and open a requested move at WT:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I suppose we could but as noted these no longer seem controversial and the consensus about how to disambiguate and when to seem to have been established. I suppose we could start a multi-move discussion on WT:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) for all of those currently listed at RMT? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Unclear if you are agreeing that it needs an RM. Since User:Sir Joseph expressed opposition at WP:RMTR it is conventional to take the matter to a full RM discussion. All the moves could be put under one discussion if you want, or you could select just a few that are representative. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't propose some other resolution for the 3-digit dates that you posted at WP:RMTR they will probably expire off that page with no definite result. This has the potential to end up with future move wars, so you might consider if you want an RfC to certify your idea. If you don't then probably nothing official will happen. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scotforth (parish)

Spotted the red link - are you working on it or shall I? I seem to be in the mood (procrastinating other stuff). PamD 10:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I decided to just go for it. PamD 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: thanks, looks good, I'll see if I can expand it later. See User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits for other examples of why we should have separate articles even though we probably otherwise have only 1 article for both settlement and parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I got in a muddle and saved a wrong version, or deleted more than I'd realised at one point, because I know I typed up stuff about the reducing size of the parish, including population figures. Hmm, will have to reinstate. Bother. I had too many tabs on my screen this morning. PamD 14:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I also added parish info to Cockersand Abbey and a couple of other places: not worth a separate parish article, but needed a mention, category, etc. PamD 14:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And I've put together Compton Wynyates (parish) from your list. PamD 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I hadn't noticed the incomplete sentence but as you can see I've added a bit of history which you've expanded on. Cockersand Abbey presumably could be split but indeed if there's only a small amount of info on the parish its probably OK for it to be in the abbey article. If you're interested (since you seem to be interested in missing Cumbria and Lancashire parishes) I can produce a list of missing current (and recently abolished) parishes in Cumbria and Lancashire for you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Woodbury Salterton has been accepted

Woodbury Salterton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stratton, Cotswold has been accepted

Stratton, Cotswold, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Myerscough (hamlet) has been accepted

Myerscough (hamlet), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lagg, Jura has been accepted

Lagg, Jura, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rhodes, Greater Manchester has been accepted

Rhodes, Greater Manchester, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harleston, South Norfolk has been accepted

Harleston, South Norfolk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hornby, Lancaster (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rich Smith was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hornby, Lancaster and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hornby, Lancaster, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Crouch, Swale! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hornby, Lancaster has been accepted

Hornby, Lancaster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flexbury, Cornwall has been accepted

Flexbury, Cornwall, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Murder in Texas

An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder in Texas. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ingerthorpe has been accepted

Ingerthorpe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilby, Breckland has been accepted

Wilby, Breckland, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Redalert2fan (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Villages in Aberdeen

A tag has been placed on Category:Villages in Aberdeen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: East Ogwell, Devon has been accepted

East Ogwell, Devon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. Please see this discussion. Bionic (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A heads up

I definitely disagree with you a lot on move discussions, but I think you are a generally polite and reasonable editor. I know disagreements can sometimes sound needlessly heated, so I just want to give an apology in advance for when I inevitably come across as rude. Hopefully my responses to you have not been that way though!--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yaksar: thankyou! noting that you have said (at least certainly not to my comments) has come across as being remotely rude. When people disagree there is sometimes uncivil comments but none of yours at Talk:Worcester/Archive 4#Requested move for example look to be problematic in any way even though some other people's were. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black Callerton has been accepted

Black Callerton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Amkgp 💬 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabrach

Hello! The meaning you cited for Cabrach is only one of a number of etymologies that have been suggested. I've tried to edit the article to reflect the uncertainty. I hope this is the appropriate way to deal with the situation where sources disagree. Regards. --188.28.107.247 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was only citing it for the part that the source gave, I just didn't remove the rest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Worcester/Archive

I agree that we might get rid of the spurious pages per G6 but I have a nagging doubt on this one. Although I try to judge the edit rather than the editor, I recognise many names in the page histories as experts who contributions I trust. I'm hoping that they created the redirects for a good reason which no longer applies, but I've put out a query to see if they can clarify things before we act. Certes (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: Yes I think the majority (the 3 that I checked) have no history other than simply being created as a redirect (rather than a talk page being moved there in error) so I think they could be deleted under G6 but I'm not completely sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bittaford (village) has been accepted

Bittaford (village), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Amkgp 💬 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brenkley has been accepted

Brenkley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Villages in Aberdeen

A tag has been placed on Category:Villages in Aberdeen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 04:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

/Archive pages for G6

Further to RfD, do you think these redirects can go per G6? They have no corresponding talk subpage.

• Adnan Hajj photographs controversy/Archive1
• Battle of Vukovar/Archive1
• Christopher Wood/Archive
• Cyber-terrorism/Archive1
• Dubstep/Archive4
• European Union/Archive05
• Jessica Lynch/Archive1
• Kurt Angle/Archive1
• Lay's/Archive1
• Lego/Archive One
• Ralph Earl/Archive
• Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia/Archive 1
• Robert F. Kennedy assassination/Archive1
• Tethered balloon/Archive1
• Thomas Percy (bishop)/Archive
• Tide Light Rail/Archive

The rest of the 141 are either in template space (which I search by default but isn't relevant here) or have Talk: archives which might benefit from keeping an easy route back to their base articles. Certes (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: Christopher Wood/Archive, Ralph Earl/Archive, Tethered balloon/Archive1, Thomas Percy (bishop)/Archive and Tide Light Rail/Archive have history (as an article) and Lay's/Archive1 has a declined speedy. With respect to the ones with history maybe the edit history should be moved to a qualified title (eg move Ralph Earl/Archive to Ralph Earl (painter)) without leaving a redirect. I would certainly support removing the titles listed above with no corresponding talk archive but I'd also probably support removing those even with a corresponding archive since although they can be useful I'd question if we need to end up with a redirect from the 266,670 (according to intitle:"Archive" from selecting discussion in search) which would seem like more mess and effort than what its worth, see WP:COSTLY. Maybe the software should automatically so that when you click on Worcester, England/Archive 1 you get a link to click on Worcester, England. Personally I'd suggest that they can be deleted under G6 (providing those with history are moved) but given Lay's/Archive1 they might be controversial enough to go through RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for history, which I forgot. I suppose we need to keep those alternative versions somewhere, except perhaps the one that duplicates the deleted Christopher Wood (Scottish painter). And yes, automatic redirection from non-existent article subpages could be a useful software enhancement. I'm not sure that the rest fall strictly within G6 as they probably had a purpose at the time rather than being created in error. I'll probably send them to RfD when I get some spare time to do the job properly. Certes (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see the Christopher Wood/Archive page[3] was the same subject as the deleted article (at least presumably) so there's no need to keep the history. When you do send them to RFD though I'd still check the history just in case it needs to be kept. They might not fall under G6 but if any are recent then R3 could presumably be used. It might be worth creating a criteria for them but if there are indeed only 141 on the whole wiki then they either are being deleted some way already or aren't created often enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Jura

Hi. Thanks for your edits to the Jura article. My dictionary defines a settlement as 'a community where people live'. So I would suggest that it is misleading to include Leargybreck and Kinuachdrachd in a list of settlements on Jura. Leargybreck now has just one building, a disused chapel which is in occasional use as a holiday home. And the one house at Kinuachdrachd has been unoccupied for a few years now. No-one lives in either of those places so they can't really be described as settlements. I hope that seems sensible. Best regards Dhmellor (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dhmellor: the Ordnance Survey does classify both Leargybreck and Kinuachdrachd as settlements and there is an article at Kinuachdrachd and a draft at Draft:Leargybreck. Maybe we could just state in brackets that Kinuachdrachd is now only a single house? but given that Jura only has 10 OS settlements it seems reasonable to mention all of them in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Geograph is an independent organisation, although it makes use of OS maps and the OS sponsors it. But I'm not aware that there is any such thing as an official OS list of 'settlements' on Jura - can you refer me to it? But my main point is much more simple - that it is confusing for readers who may not know the island to find a list of 'settelements' which includes, randomly, some which are now deserted among the inhabited ones. After all, the island is covered with deserted settlements - why not list all of them? Dhmellor (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have produced a list at User:Crouch, Swale/Jura of those that are and aren't OS settlements, I'm not sure we would need to list all of those in the lead but the 10 that are OS settlements probably can be. As you can see all of them appear on the List of United Kingdom locations pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very interesting. I've made a couple of small edits to the list which I hope will be helpful. Maybe we need to add a representative list of former settlements, although as you say there are probably too many to list them all! Dhmellor (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also just checked on Google Street Views and indeed you're right Leargybreck also now only has 1 house (the former chapel) even though (like Kinuachdrachd) there was once more so I would put in brackets "now only a single house" or similar (since there may be sheds or other outbuildings). Is Ardmenish only a single farm? but that article has existed since 2007. Maybe we should have a list of "Non OS settlements" like Template:Jura has that lists places that there is some source stating that they are (or were a settlement) even though they're not OS settlements and indeed I would put that in a separate section rather than in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southwood, Norfolk has been accepted

Southwood, Norfolk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Amkgp 💬 17:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your good work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your consistently thorough work at WP:RM, most recently in your impressively-researched and eloquently-presented nomination[4] at Talk:Piranhas#Requested_move_29_August_2020. Requested Moves is plagued by too many editors who don't follow policy and don't do the research, so your work is very valuable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Communities

Hi thank you for recognising my work with communties. I dont beleieve that the redirects are all abd as Trewalchmai and Gwalchmai is the same thing and doesnt need two articles, that would be pedantic int he extreme, i know i got in trouble for Redirecting newtown and llanwchaearn to newtown, which isi think is ridiculous. Mattcymru2 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mattcymru2: its perfectly normal to have 2 articles when there is a territory that has a different name to a settlement, see Brighton and Hove for example. In the case of "Trewalchmai and Gwalchmai" the community is called "Trewalchmai" so there should be an article there but not at "Trewalchmai and Gwalchmai". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butterwick, Barton-le-Street has been accepted

Butterwick, Barton-le-Street, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Higher Folds has been accepted

Higher Folds, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Redalert2fan (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)