User talk:Steinsky

Note: This page is on Wikipedia, if you have been redirected from another project please mention that in your message.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lytchett Matravers

It is noticed that you removed the current title holder of the manorial title to Lytchett Matravers after the repeated vandalism of the article by Richard Horlock was reverted.

The title was indeed passed to Hon. G J Beck in 2005 by the Maltravers family, and a conveyance deed is held in his possession. If you would like to see a copy of it, then please provide an email address so that proof can be provided, but it was most certainly not a case of “self aggrandisement” or a “private joke” as has been noted on the article history. A separate email will be sent to the Wikipedia Foundation to rectify those rather defamatory notes.

As the transfer of title was a private arrangement, and not made a public document, as is allowed under conveyancing rules and the Land Registration Act, then obviously a publicly-available citation isn’t available. However, there was no need to remove the original paragraph that’s been in situ for a number of years before Mr Horlock’s repeated vandalism. Sadly, Mr Horlock is renowned for posting all sorts of fantastical claims or comments on social media in relation to the village as can be seen on platforms such as Facebook.

In the meantime, evidence of the Hon. G J Beck’s title will be sent to the Wiki Foundation and yourself upon provision of contact details. 92.23.58.214 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This should be discussed on Talk:Lytchett Matravers, not on my page. Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. -Joe D (t) 09:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A vanity “lordship”…

… is what, exactly? 89.240.137.94 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bristol Harbour

Bristol Harbour has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorset Council.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bridport (ward), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sherborne Rural (ward), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holwell and North Wootton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UKcountythumb

Template:UKcountythumb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Corfe Mullen - Your Edits on 14th August

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assertion the half the content should be removed because Wikipedia is not a business directory. Some of the entries, I accept, are somewhat commercial, but schools and churches? Also the number of pubs and clubs in the town (it was a village) are relevant to the character of the location and would apply to any village or small town. Most of these entries have been there since I created the page many years ago.

Are you going to do the same on all pages that list such details? You could be kept quite busy. Terry C (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ralston Kennedy Paterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Arms and Flag in English counties

Any further explanation as to why you’ve removed the flags and arms? I can’t find any suggestion on a quick glance through of the attached guidance that they shouldn’t be included and it seems like an enormous oversight. I for one would like to see them quickly in the info box for reference and I’m sure I won’t be alone in that sentiment Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is in the How to write about counties guidance, under "English ceremonial counties" – "Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there." The guideline is the result of extensive historical discussion on the UK geography WikiProject, for example some of the more recent discussions include:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_31#Ceremonial_county_infoboxes
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_38#English_county_flags
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_39#Workshopping_Possible_RfC
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_41#Sub-national_geographic_flag_guideline

If you need further clarification, or want to relitigate the issue, I'd suggest raising it on the WikiProject talk pages - I am merely maintaining the current consensus position. Joe D (t) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bristol Old Vic

Bristol Old Vic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charminster (disambiguation)

The article Charminster (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoes of the United Kingdom

Hi, you removed the references to traditional counties at the article in the heading. On the rationale that these are an "obsolete geography". I have no problem with them being removed if they're felt unnecessarry, but its incorrect to refer to them as "obsolete"; the historic counties still exist, and are by far the most referred to geographic reference in academic circles. JoeyofScotia (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parkstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Stem Christie

I don't know why you reverted by change to the disambiguation page. There's a whole article about stem Christie to which I linked. On that page it explains the derivation of that word from Christiania. Jeisenberg (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• my change Jeisenberg (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted it in the edit summary: following the policy explained at WP:PARTIAL, the disambiguation page lists items which people call "Christie" -- specifically Christie, and Christie alone, not a name that happens to have Christie somewhere in it. As WP:PARTIAL explains, disambiguation pages are navigation aids -- the purpose of the "Christie" disambiguation page is to help people who are looking for "Christie" to find the specific "Christie" that they are looking for, it is not an index of everything that happens to have that word somewhere in its name. Joe D (t) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bristol Channel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bristol Channel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Population WD in infoboxes

Saw the update to Limpley Stoke to fetch the population from Wikidata. Does this mean the documentation of Template:Population WD should be updated? Under 'Usage' it says "Use of this template in infoboxes is not permitted". -- Wire723 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

No, good spot – I had in my head that issue had been addressed in that template some time ago, but either I'm thinking of a different one or the fix that I'm vaguely remembering didn't reach a conclusion. I'll swap it out later (or it could just be subst now, it has served its main purpose of fetching in the (definitely sourced – I did the Wikidata import!) 2021 data). Thanks, Joe D (t) 12:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Your edits to Mansfield

I've been email alerted by a bot confirming you removed File:Not Much Matches Mansfield Beer.JPG and File:But he's never had a pint of Mansfield.JPG, in this 6 May change.

The images have been extant for 10+ years; the prose was added, uncited, in this July 2009 change closely followed by another July 2009 change.

I searched, sourced and uploaded the non-free images; the fact that they both exist acts as citations for the text. Luckily, I still monitor my email.

Obviously, I disagree with your edit summary, and your rationale is unclear - they are relevant (wp:imagerelevance), and were correctly sited (although this article has undergone many changes, including to layout) and are compliant with a FUR.

It would greatly assist if you could explain why you are so vehement? This sort of thing has happened in the past where editors invoke a 7-day bot, instead of raising discussions.

Lastly...I am obliged in another way, as I have immediately identified a persistent (new) sock/block evader which irks me, so I shall have to stick around a bit longer - looking forward to more trawling through histories/diffs 8¬(. TiA.-- Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't control the bot (I didn't know there was one).

I am not an expert on the WP:FAIRUSE rationales, and I am not vehement about it – you're welcome to challenge it if you think I've made the wrong judgement – but the main issue I can see with the adverts being on the article about Mansfield town is this criterion:

• "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The article topic in question is the town of Mansfield, not Mansfield Brewery or Mansfield Bitter – they are a very small part of the article, and so I think it would be very hard to claim that they "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the town of Mansfield, or that it would be "detrimental to understanding the town of Mansfield" if the article did not include some beer adverts that ran briefly 40 years ago.

Luckily there is an article about Mansfield Brewery (which also covers Mansfield Bitter) where it would be much easier to make those claims. I have therefore moved the images and associated information about advertising to that article. Joe D (t) 09:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks; I've only just had the chance to get back to you/this. I take your points, and appreciate your thoroughness. All of the images, some 20-ish IIRC, were moved by a disruptive editor during 2023 into a contrived Gallery, contrary to mos layout and image relevance/prose context. At a later AN/I, an admin opined these two non-free images were specifically out of place and temporarily hid them. I assume all images were later restored, but as I stated there's been many changes and I haven't checked. Rgds, Steve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Avon Gorge

Avon Gorge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Bletchley and Fenny Stratford

As almost all of your edit was valuable, I won't revert. But you gave a new population figure but without a new citation - worse still, you left the Nomis2011 citation. Would you rectify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

As the edit summary says, the population citations are in the table in the demographics section (per MOS:CITELEAD). The only Nomis citation I can see in the article is against a different claim, about built-up area, which I have not edited. Joe D (t) 21:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, I skipped to the end of the end of the line. My apologies.

But according to CITELEAD, either nothing in the lead should be cited or everything (significant) should be. The population figure is one of the most significant items of information about the parish and, if anything is cited in the lead, this is the one that most certainly should be. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I have no strong feelings about having the population citation in the lead there, so do whatever you think best. But I don't think CITELEAD does say that lead citations are "everything or nothing" – it says "...subjects may require many citations; others, few or none" – which I would interpret as being a fairly clear instruction to take a case-by-case approach and use as many as the article needs. Indeed, it suggests the citations are specifically needed for things "likely to be challenged", and that more are needed for "complex, current, or controversial subjects" – I would think a readily verifiable population datum from a national statistics agency the least complex and controversial of topics. Joe D (t) 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Buckland Newton

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Buckland Newton, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hillfort

Long time ago you created Category:Hill forts. The article title is Hillfort though. Do you know if there is a reason that the spelling is slightly different? (Please ping me when replying.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle it looks like Hill fort was moved to Hillfort in 2016. It appears there are various discussions about which is the more common term on Talk:Hillfort. Joe D (t) 08:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like it is not a very big deal. Unless you object, I'll have the categories moved to hillforts just for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  If you like, I have no opinion on which is the preferable form. Joe D (t) 09:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Alex Mapelli-Mozzi & Ashbourne, Derbyshire

@Joe D - I now see you have reverted in full another of my edits, this time to Ashbourne, Derbyshire. Having acknowledged your observations, could you give me time to make the necessary amendments before such reverting in full. Seemingly you're far more concerned with procedure than the content. Ofc if you think these articles are fine, then let me know and they can remain as they are (full of inaccuracies). I do get your point that my contributions have sometimes contravened editing guidelines but I thought Wiki works in a spirit of co-operation so could we work together to improve them svp? Best Primm1234 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bristol Museum & Art Gallery

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bristol Museum & Art Gallery, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Joyce Dennys & the Revd Lord Frederick Beauclerk

@Joe D: hi there! I was just about to thank you so much for your attention to the Lord Frederick Beauclerk article, which ofc I made edits prior to re-reading the MOS guidelines - much appreciated.

And, whilst I now intend to take a breather & allow my comprehension of MOS to sink in before getting into any more hot water! I did publish those edits about Joyce Dennys so I could see whether my tendency to overlink etc is being remedied. And, I had in mind to ask you (because you're most helpful) to give that article a once over to see if it's on the right track... But I see you've already reverted it in full. Thing is, I double & triple-checked all the references and info before publishing, so I know the article is on the money - at least content-wise. Perhaps some of the references are now in the wrong place? I need to insert a reference to Burke's Landed Gentry (1965) DENNYS which is a publicly-available mine of information and supports a great deal of the additional info... Anyway, you've reverted it now, so dunno what to do? Certainly dun wanna get into any conflict, so maybe just let things be for time being..?

Also, just as a point of info on the other article, the caption for the Coat of Arms should specifically state they are the arms of the Revd Lord Frederick Beauclerk (and not simply Beauclerk), because the ecclesiastical ornaments denote his being an Anglican priest and therefore are specific to him alone. The only other Beauclerk clergyman was a bishop, so his arms wud display the ornaments of a prelate...

Anyway, many thanks again for helping - much appreciated & till soon. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

PS. now that I was focussing on not overlinking in the Joyce Dennis article, I seem to have not paid enough attention to the references (altho I did add quite a few, hopefully, useful ones)... My apologies for this... Obvs I'm now under watch so gotta be extra careful, but prob is that the Dennys article is back to being littered with numerous mistakes... Just in case you were wondering what her family connections have got to do with anything! these explain a lot about her worldliness, how she got on so well during the War & who her husband was (btw he wasn't a Doctor of Medicine but he was a medical doctor, ie physician) and why they went to Oz etc etc...

Anyway I do understand why you felt inclined to revert the article (but ofc we're now back to square one)... I do much appreciate your help & let's liaise further in the not-too-distant.. All best wishes Primm1234 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Joe D: just revised these articles, which I sincerely hope & pray are satisfactory. If not, please let me know so I can attend to it/them promptly. Many thanks in advance for your consideration and most helpful guidance. Best Primm1234 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I can not see that any attempt has been made to address the issues with your changes to the Joyce Dennis article. You have made the same major changes to statements without providing new citations, such that the article now misrepresents its sources. It is not enough to just have any citation next to a claim in a Wikipedia article, the claim in the Wikipedia article has to actually reflect what is said in that source – in this case, you have replaced claims that reflect what is said in the source with claims that are absent in or directly contradict what is said in the cited source. You have added the same MOS:EASTEREGG links – linking to articles whose relevance to Joyce Dennys, or to the display text that you have linked, is nowhere made clear. You continue to use the word "updates" as your WP:EDITSUMMARY when making major updates. I have tried to be patient and provide guidance on these issues, and I can see that several others have done the same, but it is the exact same issues that seem to be coming up again and again. Joe D (t) 13:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Steinsky: my sincerely apologies... Let's look at where I'm going wrong if okay?

{{Infobox person

| name = Joyce Dennys

| birth_name = Isobel Dorothy Joyce Dennys

| other_names = Mrs Joyce Evans

| birth_date = (1893-08-14)14 August 1893

| birth_place = Shimla, Punjab, British India

| death_date = 22 February 1991(1991-02-22) (aged 97)

| death_place = Hampstead, London, England

| nationality = British

| citizenship =

| education = Princess Helena College, Ealing

| alma_mater = Exeter Art School

| occupation = Cartoonist - illustrator - painter

| years_active = 1916–1986

| spouse = Dr Tom Evans ​(m. 1919⁠–⁠1965)

| children = 2

| relatives = Sir Hector Travers Dennys (uncle); Rodney Dennys (cousin)

| awards =

}}

Infobox - most people (other than art aficianados & friends) addressed her as Mrs Evans or Mrs Joyce Evans;
She was born at Shimla in northern India under the British Raj (not India, as presently stated, but British India);
She lived at West House, Sandy Road, Hampstead NW3 - not in Camden Town;
Her nationality was British (not English) & the concept of citizenship is n/a in her case;
Her alma mater is a moot point - I left it as Princess Helena College but clarified it as being the Ealing establishment (ie. where she went);
Her husband was Dr Tom Evans (or more formally Major Thomas Evans DSO);
And I included her relatives for reasons previously stated...

In cases like this, it's probably best I steer clear because the version as now reverted back is, just in my view at least, quite under-par..! Were I starting from scratch it'd be a lot easier (& less problematic)...

Anyway, much obliged if you could advise where I'm going wrong in the Infobox section so we can make progress - many thanks in advance. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

In the preamble it states: She worked for the Voluntary Aid Detachment - normally as part of the War effort one wud say "served with" rather than "work for" (it wasn't normal civilian employment)... It goes on to say "Budleigh Salterton Auxiliary Hospital in the local Budleigh Salterton hospital" which I corrected...

I relocated the sentence about going to Australia because that has to do with her marrying an Australian Army veteran - she didn't get invited down under of her own volition (altho she certainly made the best of it whilst there)...

I added a ref. about the blue plaque, so not quite sure what the problem is there...

And "It premieres at the ADC Corpus Playroom in Cambridge in July 2024" obvs shud be in the past tense... (& I've added a ref. too).

Please advise (as I really do not want to be in the dog house for making best endeavours to improve this article)... Many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Early life

Her father was a colonel (not a captain)... he was with his regiment at Shimla in Aug 1893.

"who was stationed in the country" (superfluous) and his wife, the Scottish-born housewife - she is not the Scottish-born wife & in those days Army wives were hardly housewives in the 1950s sense.. she was an Army wife with servants in attendance...

Far more interesting - I think - is that her father distinguished himself in medical circles becoming Surgeon-General having also received the degree of Doctor of Medicine... (Obvs she later married a doctor..)

It goes on to say "Budleigh Salterton Auxiliary Hospital in the local Budleigh Salterton hospital" which I corrected...

There is & never was such an institution as the London School of Art (as cited by an Australian journal) - I corrected this... And "worked for the Joint War Committee" is a misnoma too (which I corrected)...

Please tell me where I'm going wrong here - much obliged. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

& so it goes on - a big error is MC Tindall (shud be M.G. Tindall)

Personal life

It states her husband was a doctor of medicine - which he wasn't. However Evans was a decorated WWI veteran (as mentioned at 1918 Birthday Honours)

Books

The titles of her works have been put in lower case whereas they had, when published, capital letters at the beginning of each word - no biggie (but just depends on whether one wants to be accurate or not)...

Do let me know if my thought processes are totally up a gum tree... Cheers Primm1234 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, several of these changes are not substantiated by, or directly contradict the cited sources – her father's rank, for example (which you also separated from its citation by adding intervening text). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. If you have other sources of comparable quality that state otherwise, you can add that to the article with a suitable citation – explaining that sources differ. If you have a source that demonstrates conclusively that the current cited source is incorrect, then make the correction and add that – but bear in mind WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, and the fact that Wikipedia must reflect what the sources say, without our own original research or synthesising sources to produce novel conclusions. Joe D (t) 16:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joe D: but this is not my own research! Not in the slightest... clearly this is perhaps where any misunderstanding between us originates.

Frankly, as said, the article in its present form is very poor - I have no doubt such issues would not arise if I were starting from scratch. Bottom line is, though, I don't want to get the blame for trying to improve the article.

So... best is probably to give it a wide berth if it's going to land me in the soup (unless you can tell me otherwise)...

Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

PS. my dear Joe D: do you have access to Burke's Landed Gentry (18th edn), 1965, Vol. I, p. 203: DENNYS of Heaslands. Online it's a subscription source but, by good fortune, my own library includes almost all editions of BPB & BLG... Moreover all good public libraries have these publications in their Reference Sections.

Pretty much all of what we're quibbling over is cited in Burke's - it really is a mine of historical info.

I presume you will be satisfied if I cite BLG next to all the issues raised? Lemme know as better to ask in advance than getting into a ding-dong. RSVP. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Citing a reliable source would certainly help, but it would not make your edits in the form you made them appropriate:

1. The sources must support the specific claims being made - as WP:SYNTH explains, the Wikipedia article must not synthesise unrelated claims from different sources to draw conclusions that are not explicitly made in them. For example, in your edit, you cited this BMJ article as evidence that her mother was Lucy, daughter of John Tulloch. The source makes no such claims, it just demonstrates that somebody named John Tulloch once existed, saying nothing at all about a Lucy or any connection to Joyce Dennys.
2. The content which you edited is already supported by appropriate citations and you changed it so that it directly contradicts those sources. If you have access to reliable sources which contradict the content in the article, then it would be appropriate to add those to the article and explain where different sources disagree about a fact – see Wikipedia:Verifiability ("if reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say"). Only replace the content if the criteria at WP:DUE apply – e.g. if the current cited source is out-of-date and a new source explains that the facts or the available evidence have changed, or if a plurality of reliable sources agree that the current cited source is wrong.

My suggestion would be to take this to the article's own talk page, and list each item you think is wrong with the current article, and what sources you have to show as much, so that somebody there can consider how best to incorporate that into the article. Joe D (t) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The problems with the infobox can not be separated from the problems with the rest of the edits, because the Infobox should only contain information that is stated with sources in the body. In this case, "she was born in Shimla" – the source you cited for this does not say she was born in Shimla, it says she was born in Murree – you edited the text to say Shimla, thus misrepresenting the source being cited for that section of the text. Same for Hampstead vs Camden, you changed the text to something that contradicts the source being cited.

Most of the other issues with the infobox are straightforward manual of style problems of the kind that have been explained to you several times, such as MOS:DOC and MOS:EASTEREGG. Joe D (t) 15:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joe D: ah, I see... the source concerning Shimla/Murree is not my citation but a hangover from a previous version - however, I accept I should be held accountable for this given that I've been attempting to overhaul the article by way of corrections. As far as Camden is concerned, I did reference that correctly, qv. www.camdenology.org.

Ref. MOS I've been making extra special efforts to get this right - but the previous version is so poor please forgive me if I've not got it quite right... My sincere apologies...

Now what to do? Please advise best way forward (if I do the corrections bit by bit, it won't match up whilst it's a work-in-progress). Your assistance is very much appreciated. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dry point

The article Dry point has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found mentions, but no in-depth content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Steinsky, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Malvern

Why did you leave in Malvern Hills? You are the worst user on Wikipedia I have come across. Thank God for Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Stour Provost

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Stour Provost, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Redcar when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read it's documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

High Legh

@Steinsky: hello again!

I see you've taken issue with my edits to the High Legh article, although your recognition that there are some morsels worth having... Maybe you don't like the style or maybe it's something else... but the recently improved (now reverted) article was definitely more accurate. We had this sort of discussion about Joyce Dennys & I see that article is still not quite as informative as it could have been... What to do in such instances where the info is good but not quite to your satisfaction?

In the immortal phrase: "let's see what we can salvage here"!!!

Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

PS. ofc should you contest the veracity of any of the info I provided, please let me know so I can explain in full detail... All I was trying to do was make the article accurate and read well... But now we're back to square one (to use the football analogy - appropriate, perhaps, given High Legh's dubbed Gold Trafford!). Primm1234 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Primm1234, as you say, we had this sort of discussion before, more than once. Several editors have had this sort of discussion with you before. Several editors have held your hand and talked you through line by line and link by link how you are violating the manual of style and guidance on overlinking and piped linking. We can't keep doing that again and again, you have to make some effort here. If you would like the answer to your current question, go back and read those discussions. The answers are the same as they were then. It is clear that you have still not taken any of them on board.

In the meantime, my suggestion would be that if you see something in Wikipedia that you think is incorrect, leave a note on the article's talk page and let somebody else fix it. Joe D (t) 16:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Steinsky: Thanks for your offer to correct the article... let’s whizz thru what could immediately help improve it:

It is Six miles… (capital S)!

History

simply by stating Sir Edward Leigh & to spell out Richard Cornwall-Legh, 6th Baron Grey of Codnor would surely help clarify…

Leigh-Traffords is wrong – they were the Trafford Leighs

The third lordship of the manor is also wrong – third moiety…

In a mainly agricultural area, its proximity to Manchester and the area now known as "Gold Trafford" has made it nowadays a desirable residential area. (just thought area, area, area repeated three times would be better the way I worded it – but that’s just a matter of style, I s’pose)

Saxons theins – thegns is how Wiki spells it…

Repton “dropped” the old toll road – sounds like estate agent-speak!

In the 1990s another estate was built – meaning another housing estate (given there is so much other reference to estates)…

Sport

Arley Hall is actually owned by Lord Ashbrook’s wife… née Egerton-Warburton (so until Michael dies - which he certainly hasn't yet! it's Viscountess Ashbrook's seat)...

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best Primm1234 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Parishes

WP:show where you got it. If the citation given does not actually contain the information or even a suggestion of where it might be, then it fails verification. We should not need to rely on a template in your sandbox and wikidata with unknown provenance to provide it. It is better to declare that NOMIS still hasn't made available this the most basic of the 2021 census data. It might even embarrass them into doing something about it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I very much doubt NOMIS will be embarrassed into building a web interface for the data by Wikipedia. Their stakeholders are government and business who don't need such a thing. We need to get on and use the data which is available, even if it's through a slightly clunky interface, otherwise you'll find people just turn to CityPopulation.de, which really does have some curious data in it (like coming up with their own built-up areas which do not match ONS's built-up areas).

The Wikidata is not unknown provenance: I imported it from NOMIS, and documented it in full here. You're right though that my citations for the 2021 data could provide more detail. Alas, I ran that import before I found the full set of parameters for the reference field in Wikidata, so didn't make them as detailed as the 2001 and 2011 imports which I ran later, and now it's not easy to bulk update the reference (the Wikidata bulk edit tools would add a duplicate reference instead). In some cases I've added it manually when bringing it into an article - I'll add it to my todo list to go back and check for any articles that are missing it. Joe D (t) 11:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for resolving the {{fv}} at Buckingham.

NOMIS don't have to build a new web interface, they've already got one and have had for years. This is for Bletchley BU[s]A (note change of code):

• https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E35000902 (2011) just works because they populated it and in fairly short order if I remember correctly. I think that it may even have been in existence for C2001.
• https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E63003960 (2021) just doesn't, because they still haven't populated it fully. If I put {{code|Bletchley]] in the search box, it will give me the three MKCC electoral wards and low-level enumeration districts. But not the two CPs or the BUA. The data analysis has been done: if they can present it in a spreadsheet, it should be trivial by now to load it into the web interface.

Citypopulation.de seems pretty good to me: for starters, its figure for Milton Keynes is correct [equals the ONS ABUA figure for 2987] because, unlike the ONS, they haven't confused themselves by drawing an arbitrary line around 60% of MK and using the name "Milton Keynes" for that fragment. Yes, I understand and approve of the "space between blocks of bricks and mortar" criterion but they haven't been consistent. (Delineate an area south of the A421 and west of the A5 and call it Bletchley, fair enough. So why not do the same for south of the A421 and east of the A5? (and how did the tiny fragment, Wavendon, suddenly appear?) And why not north of the A421 and west of the A5? North of the A422 and between the A5 and the M1? The wedge east of the River Ouzel, north of the A421, west of the M1? Declare that the M1 is too wide at 52.080735°N 0.744116°W / 52.080735; -0.744116 to be contiguous but the A5 and WCML at 52.030488°N 0.770957°W / 52.030488; -0.770957 is not wide enough? )

Rhetorical questions that you can't answer of course but it explains why I have no faith in their competence. I just see petty parish pump politics at play, not detached and dispassionate analysis.

A lot of people get their facts from Wikipedia: although we say "don't trust us, look at the sources we cite", they know that we have those sources and we've done the work to find them. So, at least IMO, we should not collude with NOMIS's continued failure to do their job (which is to make the stats accessible to the ordinary punter) by digging down ourselves into spreadsheets: we should declare openly and loudly that we can't provide even parish level stats because they are still not accessible via a mobile phone. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I have just repaired the fv at Olney, Buckinghamshire. It now reads

• "Parish Profiles". 2021 United Kingdom census. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 5 August 2024. then Query data then, at Geogrophy, click this needs to be selected then Parishes 2022 then, under Tools List areas within, chose Milton Keynes and then tick Olney, Finally, on the upper left of the screen, choose Download data and then view the data in your web browser

Compare that with 2011 (after I fixed its URL)

• "Key Statistics". Office for National Statistics. Table KS101EW (Usual resident population) and Table KS105EW (Household composition). Retrieved 23 June 2025.
  • and that could have been even simpler if you had used {{NOMIS2011}} thus: UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Olney (parish) (E04001268)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Shalfleet

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shalfleet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

"Commieblock" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Commieblock has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § Commie blocks until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Totnes

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Totnes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I should have looked more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

High sheriffs

Hey! I think I've now updated all of the ceremonial county articles to work with with the new high sheriffs template. The exceptions are Bristol, which uses a different infobox, and Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Cornwall, which aren't yet on the template (I assume because of their distinct arrangements). Changing the name of Durham to County Durham seemed to fix the problem there. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope Brilliant – thanks! I'll look at getting the others included this evening. Joe D (t) 16:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful! I can see you've done the others, so hopefully that's the sheriffs sorted for the foreseeable.

While I'm here, I take it you'd rather be addressed as Joe rather than Steinsky now? I'll go with whatever you prefer, it's just unfortunate that the mention function defaults to your old name. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Either is fine, really, but I am long overdue finding a new username that is available and filing a request to change it, otherwise I'll be stuck forever with a throwaway one that I picked in a hurry when I was 17! Joe D (t) 18:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishop's Hull, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parish council was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by cn tagging

Is the SPA that is cn-tagging everything Somerset-related genuine? It's weird behaviour and makes me think they've been around before - maybe a sock account? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket I got the same sense, but I don't recognise it as the hallmark of anyone I've encountered before, and it could be genuine. Might be worth directing them to Template:Citation needed § When not to use this template and the relevant parts of MOS and seeing how it goes? Joe D (t) 21:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look at tomorrow. Signing off for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dunster

Dunster has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Change of template on Abbey (Reading ward)

I see that you have changed the infobox on Abbey (Reading ward) from Template:Infobox UK place to Template:Infobox England and Wales ward with the comment switch infobox to the one for wards, to avoid it implying the article is about a place. I'm not entirely sure I understand the comment; to my mind a ward is a type of place so there is absolutely nothing wrong with implying the article is about a place. Most of the content of the article is about attributes a ward has precisely because it is a place (position on a map, boundaries, population, area, demographic stats, schools, etc).

That notwithstanding, if there is a better template to use for wards then I would be more than happy to support its use. The trouble is, I'm having some difficulty convincing myself that this template is an improvement. For sure it has one major advantage in that it allows the naming of the councillors in the infobox, which I do like. But you pay for that by losing a lot of information. There doesn't seem to be any way to express the coordinates or the area of the ward and no way of getting a map short of manually creating one. And the way it renders county is clumsy to say the least; what is 'Local government in Berkshire' actually saying given that Berkshire is a ceremonial county and not a local government area, and what is the unexplained South-East England text underneath it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but to me the new template seems a bit half-baked, a decent enough prototype for how we might improve ward articles in the future but not really ready for live use yet. Which probably explains why it only has 300-odd usages. Can you convince me otherwise?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Wards are not places - certainly not places like the places that use Infobox UK Place. If it were a place, Abbey would follow WP:UKPLACE and be at Abbey, Reading, but it's not, which is why it and other wards don't follow that convention.

Often a ward shares its name with a place, and sometimes it has roughly similar boundaries to the place that it shares its name with (in those cases, it's common to merge the ward into the place article, and discuss it in the 'governance' section or similar).

Wards exist for the purpose of creating roughly balanced electorate sizes in council elections, and for the elected councillors to then represent that electorate. They are frequently redrawn and renamed, and they blink in and out of existence. Before and after a boundary review the name of an old ward might be re-used for a new ward, the two having less than 50% overlap in territory. Wards don't have the stability to be places.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England draw the ward boundaries. Among the criteria they try to take into account are existing community ties and local identities - hence often reusing established names of places - but they are clear that their overriding priority is balanced electorate sizes and that they are not trying to define places, only electoral districts for the convenience of local government.

300 sounds like a lot of articles using this template to me - it's not that normal to create individual articles about wards. A few have been deleted at AfD because the community does not think wards meet the "presumed to be notable" criteria at WP:NPLACE precisely because they're not places. Most (perhaps all?) that do exist (and survive AfD) are for county councils or unitary authorities. Often a county/UA just has a "list of wards" page with a table containing key information about them, rather than creating separate articles.

You're right though that the template looks like it has some odd layout choices in it. That sounds like something to raise on the template talk page - I did not create the template or have any hand in it at all, so I can't comment on why those decisions were made.

cheers, Joe D (t) 20:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Joe D. Thanks for your response. I am aware of what wards are and how they are created, but none of that screams 'this is not a place' to me. A ward has a name, a location, boundaries, a population, etc., and that says to me that it is a place. There are different sorts of places, such as towns, villages, neighbourhoods, parishes, etc, and when you say Often a ward shares its name with a place, and sometimes it has roughly similar boundaries to the place that it shares its name with, I would rephrase that as something like Often a ward shares its name with a town, village or neighbourhood, and sometimes both places have roughly similar boundaries.

I do take your point about WP:UKPLACE, and I do think the article might be better named Abbey Ward, Reading (not Abbey, Reading because that is more likely to be a reference to the Abbey itself). However I didn't invent the X (Y ward) naming strategy, and lots of wards are named that way, so I'm not going to rush into a mass rename, but I will create redirs for the ward articles I am working on.

Yes, I do agree that the relative volatility of ward boundaries could be something of an issue, but in real life they don't change that much that often (most Reading wards are largely the same as they were 50 years ago) and rewarding is something that typically happens every decade or two. If that level of volatility is that much of an issue, then we certainly shouldn't be including councillor's names in infoboxes.

Including aricles on wards does have some particular advantages, especially for urban wards. Wards have well defined boundaries, so it is (normally) possible to obtain well sourced demographic information on them from the likes of the ONS, and that lets us tell the story of the nature of the ward in a way that simply isn't possible for the (typically) rather vaguely defined neighbourhoods and suburbs of a large town or city. Without wards, that story can only really be told for the whole town/city, which loses a lot of information on granularity and urban diversity.

I think the situation is rather different in rural areas, if only because the presence of well defined civil parishes provides a better way of telling that story. In general, I would not consider creating ward articles in parished areas, but in the (generally urban) unparished parts of the country, they are really the only thing available. I'm quite surprised to hear that ward articles have been presumed not to be notable, as there is plenty of data and reputable sourcing available. Perhaps the articles hadn't availed themselves of that, or were for more rural areas.

As you suggest, I will take my comments on the template to the appropriate place. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chris j wood: FWIW, I agree with Joe D's analysis. Wards are transient, arbitrarily drawn lines for electoral purposes, subject to change maybe five times in an average human lifetime. Compare that to civil parishes that change maybe once in five lifetimes, max. The problem with Reading is that it has not been parished so, although neighbourhoods like Abbey do exist, they have no defined identity. Using an electoral division as a proxy was always going to be a problem.

There is already a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Add English council ward field? that may be relevant. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@JMF:. As I hope came across from my comments, I too prefer to use civil parishes to wards, where they are available. But the issue is that according to this House of Commons Library briefing paper only ~36% of people in England live in parished areas, with most people living in towns and cities that are not parished; so it is very much not just a Reading issue. I don't thinki we can just ignore 60% of people, or pretend that places like Reading, or even Manchester, are a single homogenous community.

I think the volatility is something we should, and can, live with. If WP was to rule out covering anything with a volatility of less than, say, 20 years, that would take out a huge swathe of our current content. We can say goodbye to anything to do with sports, reduce our cultural content to just Shakespeare and classical music, and pretty well eviscerate our coverage of all economic, political and technology arenas. We manage that level of volatility in those areas, I'm sure we can here.

I've looked at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Add English council ward field?, but I don't think it is relevant. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to be based on the rather rural-centric view that wards are big places with smaller places within them, whilst in the urban world wards are often the smallest well-defined places. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I totally recognise the problem: my point was that it doesn't have any easy solution. A recent discussion at Northampton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northampton (civil parish) confirms your assessment (maybe it is even worse there: South Northamptonshire UA is mostly Northampton but there is still a Northampton parish with its own town council!).

The City of Milton Keynes is easy because it is fully parishes, which is just as well given that the wards were all reconfigured for this year's election, about ten years since last time and 20 from the time before. This is probably fairly typical for SE England. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Revised to cite correct place for the Northampton CP discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Severn Trent when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I was checking over somebody else's edits and failed to pay attention to the fact that theirs was not the latest version of the page before hitting edit, I'll go check I didn't overwrite any other subsequent edits. Joe D (t) 21:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It happens! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Buckingham

Main article: Buckingham § Population

I am in the middle of cleaning up a mess. Pleaae hang back for a couple of hours. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have finished (and updated Maids Moreton) en route. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that you have found a better way into the 2021 stats. Anyway, I notice that we now have different figures and citations for 2011 in the text v in the table??

• UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Buckingham Civil Parish (E04001465)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 20 October 2019.
• "Key Statistics". Office for National Statistics. Table KS101EW (Usual resident population) and Table KS105EW (Household composition). Retrieved 23 June 2025.

My inclination is to go with NOMIS for both. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like they both verify all 4 figures in the table for 2011, so, sure, fine to de-duplicate and pick one. The table is built automatically from Wikidata, which contains the data from the nomis tables KS101EW and KS105EW for all civil parishes (and the equivalents for 2001 and 2021), which is why it cites those. But the Local Area Report pages are far superior usability, so I'd agree with just using that one. In fact, it shouldn't be difficult to get the table template to build LAR citations automatically, maybe I'll do that for future usage. Joe D (t) 20:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. But it just adds to my frustration with NOMIS, that we still have to hack their systems to get something as uncontroversial as a CP population for 2021. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RAF Sandtoft, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Main was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

St Ives Lifeboat Station

@Steinsky

Please advise if you would prefer I cease creating and editing articles.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I have no desire to stop you creating or editing articles. I haven't checked in detail, but I don't doubt that you're doing useful work correcting out-of-date information and filling gaps. My only intent in editing St Ives Lifeboat Station is to apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style (and, where necessary, to explain clearly which parts of the MOS I'm applying and why). Everyone who is here to edit Wikipedia in good faith is very welcome – but it's a collective effort and we should expect that our contributions will get edited by others, who will apply community standards like the MOS.

Looking through the recent updates to lifeboat stations, it does look like there are some consistent issues which we should address, particularly with the lead sections (alongside some good changes to the leads, which are appreciated and should be preserved!):

• Currently these read like entries in a guidebook to British and Irish lifeboat stations rather than Wikipedia entries: the "can be found..." structure by its nature takes important aspects of the topic as given – as MOS:LEADSENTENCE says, the lead needs to explain to the nonspecialist reader what the topic is (i.e., that it's a RNLI station), and in the articles that I've looked at so far, they generally did that much more clearly before the recent updates.
• Conversely, they sometimes focus too much on details of location which belong in other linked Wikipedia articles: there is an article about the town of St Ives that we link to, so the St Ives Lifeboat Station doesn't need to explain, for example, its distance from Truro. I would suggest focusing location details on those that most help the average reader understand the topic, something like:
  • Link to the town and mention the county in the first sentence, without repeating other generic information about the town - the reader can click the link if they want to know more about the town
  • A sentence somewhere in the lead saying where on the coast it is, with any key facts like whether it's a boathouse and slipway, a harbour dock, etc
  • Perhaps the next stations along the coast – Weymouth Lifeboat Station mentions Lyme Regis and Swanage, for example, but it's not obvious to the nonspecialist reader why it mentions those towns in particular, so I would change those to mentions of the stations rather than the towns
  • Any location details that help to give context to why there's demand for a lifeboat station there – e.g. your changes to Weymouth Lifeboat Station mention coastal features like Portland and the Jurassic Coast, and that it's a seaside resort, which do all seem to be relevant context to the lifeboat station, and it's only the reference to Dorchester that I would cut as being more appropriate on the Weymouth town article
• MOS:INTRO has lots more useful guidance on this

A consistent structure for articles of a type is a good aim, but that should always be secondary to and in service of the broader aims and standards of the Wikipedia project, and should not be at the expense of any existing good quality content on any individual article of the type. Cheers, Joe D (t) 11:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Steinsky

Thanks for the reply

You will understand that as a creator, I don't tend to take amendments well, especially if they are imposed just hours after I have uploaded days of work. The hours spent pulling it together just cast aside, and the scale of your changes and editing just puts me off doing any more.

I also seem to be the victim of personal whims, what suits one person doesn't suit another, and it gets to the point where you cannot suit everyone. Demands for this or that style and format seem to be valued far more than the actual content, which is one of the things wrong with wiki. Whether I'm right or wrong, there is a level of consistency across all lifeboat pages.

The other issue is that for every wiki MOS, there seems to be an equal and opposite MOS. In your eyes, you may see it as black and white, but in reality, EVERYTHING can be interpreted differently.

Regarding your changes:

You don't like Dr. How else am I to indicate this man's role otherwise, without post nominals. But you deleted those as well? So what would you have me do??

"Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following someone's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where that person is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications concerning some part of the article"

You deleted several article links, saying they're not relevant, like Porthgwidden. But that is just YOUR opinion. How can a link to a location of a boathouse NOT BE RELEVANT? I'm really not sure why you needed to delete article links to the Civil Service, Post Office and British Telecom??

I don't like the quotation thing. How is anyone supposed to know if its a quotation if you don't put it in Quotation marks. If it doesn't have quotation marks, someone else will come along and amend it, because they don't realise its a quotation - and we go round in circles.

The lead for example, can all too easily fall into "St Ives Lifeboat Station is a Lifeboat Station"...which is just bad english. I tried "Is located at", but that brought complaints too. So for the lead, I have a format. Name, Where, When, By whom, What kit. The geographic info may have slightly too much detail, but as a researcher for the RNLI, the most common request we receive from the average person is, How to find the lifeboat station, and which lifeboat do they have?

I checked the MOS - St Ives Lifeboat Station (which by its title defines what it is) and where, should be perfectly acceptable. Again, we are down to personal interpretation.

All-weather lifeboats (ALB) and Inshore lifeboats (ILB) are classes of lifeboats used by the RNLI. Its not an adjective, like an all-weather raincoat. Its a Name. It can start with a Capital.

I don't profess to be correct about everything, or really very much actually.

But there needs to be a degree of flexibility, or we may just as well give up now. It might not be perfect, but does it read well.

I look at the way you sweep into pages, one every few minutes, and I think, you're not being fair to the creator, and not giving due care. You managed to delete two article links on the St Ives page on your first visit just through carelessness.

My Dad, former traffic cop, had a saying, "He died having his right of way". Yes, the driver was perfectly right, and within the law, but he's now dead. Maybe better to ease off a bit, and just accept that its not always about being right.

There's an awful lot of badly crafted wiki pages out there, you don't need to be picking on one that's really not so bad, or someone who is trying their hardest to do a good job!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Martin, you can rest assured that nobody is picking you or your content, and nobody doubts your hard work or aim do a good job. Editing each-other's work is a fundamental of how Wikipedia works – one the Wikipedia:Five pillars: "all editors freely license their work to the public, and no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed". On Wikipedia it happens to all of us all of the time, and it is never meant as a criticism of one's ability or effort.

If "as a creator" you "don't tend to take amendments well" then yes, Wikipedia might not be for you: you do not own content on Wikipedia and you have to expect that anything you submit to Wikipedia will be edited, and that nothing personal is meant by those edits. If your goal is to write and have editorial control over a guidebook to RNLI lifeboat stations, then yes, Wikipedia might not be for you: that's not what Wikipedia is. But I hope, and will continue to assume, that isn't the case: you clearly know a lot about your subject and your contributions are very welcome and appreciated if you're here to build an encyclopedia and happy to accept other users will also work on the same articles.

Porthgwidden is not a relevant link to the St Ives Lifeboat Station article because the Porthgwidden article is about a hamlet south of Truro, it is not about the Porthgwidden in St Ives. If you want to argue against other instructions in the style guide, you are free to open discussions on the relevant talk pages of the style guide. Joe D (t) 15:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Steinsky

Ah, Porthgwidden, my error. Apolgies.

I'm not adverse to the constructive amendments of pages, and I appreciate that I don't own it. I just find it difficult when someone pulls it apart just hours after its been published. I endured a whole year of someone rewriting articles I'd just done, in one case within 6 minutes, just because it wasn't in HIS style. Nothing to do with MOS. So I trust you will understand why I am defensive.

I can and will accept some of your amendments, but in view of the lack of response to some of my arguments, I will be obliged to revert some changes.

I will consider the amount of detail on location, as I accept that maybe I'm trying too hard, but I cannot accept 'St Ives Lifeboat Station is an RNLI Lifeboat Station. As per MOS, my view is that the most important first detail is not who runs it, but 'where it is'.

Regarding Dr Dean, I have no idea what to put. To put Donald Dean was a doctor seems bonkers to me, when you can put Dr Donald Dean.

Best wishes

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Yate

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • https://yatetowncouncil.gov.uk/yate. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Citypopulation as source

Thank you for the heads up von Citypopulation.com! I am currently reworking a few articles on English villages over in the German Wikipedia, and trying to find reliable and accessible census information is a recurring nightmare. Is there any good source?

I did manage to find a way to link to the census data directly in regard to larger settlements like Thames Ditton (see link here). Sharing this in case it could be useful for you in the future. Kind ragrds, Fallen Sheep (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Fallen Sheep:, forgive me for butting in but CityPopulation.de is better than nothing, and if you want 2021 census data, nothing is mostly what is on offer unless you are willing to plough through huge spreadsheets. The deprecation of CP reads As CityPopulation.de gets much of its information from census data, some editors suggest citing the original censuses instead. That was all very well when NOMIS gave a response to simple uncontroversial requests like "what is the population of Buckinghams civil parish?". Right now, this is what you have to do:

• "Parish Profiles". Office for National Statistics. GSS area E04001465 (Buckingham) in tables PP001 (number of households) and PP002 (sex). Retrieved 5 August 2024.

and that is an abbreviated version of the hoops you have to jump through. If you want the population of an urban area, Milton Keynes urban area for example, this is what you have to do:

• For its reports on the 2021 Census, the ONS uses the term "Amalgamated Built-up Area" for urban areas. Its ABuA for Milton Keynes, number 2987, comprises these contiguous built-up areas: "2021 Rural Urban Classification". Office for National Statistics. 22 August 2025. Retrieved 20 December 2025. Table 4A in the Supplementary Tables

In summary, editors use CityPopulation.de or don't bother. Mostly they don't bother, which is one of the reasons why so many articles have not been updated since the 2011 census. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Fallen Sheep, and please accept my apologies – I noted this to reply to but got distracted by other tasks! Unfortunately, the answer to your question is complicated – but hopefully actually using the data in the German Wikipedia shouldn't be so complex. Our Office for National Statistics (ONS) doesn't explicitly report census data for "villages", but it reports data for three things that approximate "village" with varying degrees of appropriateness for our task:

1. Civil parishes: Most English villages are in a civil parish that is named after it, and on the English Wikipedia, in those situations we treat the village and the parish as a single topic (even though they are not perfectly synonymous: the parish will often include some rural hinterland around the village, and in a few edge cases might not include all of the built-up area of the village). Some villages are not in a civil parish though, or are in an amalgamated parish along with another village.
2. Built-up areas: ONS define these by drawing a line around the contiguous parts of a settlement.
3. Electoral wards: these are often named after a village that is in them, but their purpose is creating areas with equal population sizes at elections, so their boundaries are regularly redrawn, they pop in and out of existence, and my view (shared by several here) is that they are therefore not very suitable for telling us what the population of a village is, and definitely not for looking at trends or comparisons. The link you gave for Thames Ditton is for an electoral ward.

ONS don't make a nice page for accessing civil parish data, instead making it available in these spreadsheets. However, you're in luck: I have already imported all of the civil parish population data for the past 3 censuses into Wikidata, so it is easy to retrieve the data into Wikipedia articles using templates. Because English Wikipedia doesn't like live-linking Wikidata, I import the data article-by-article using this one; but if the German Wikipedia is more open to live-linking Wikidata, that might make things easier for you. Or you can simply open the Wikidata item under In anderen Projekten in the tools menu to copy the figures.

The built-up areas data is in this spreadsheet. I rarely use that because, for most villages, it's not substantially different to civil parish data. But it's useful for those villages that don't neatly match an eponymous parish.

Thanks - and good luck! Joe D (t) 17:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility of transport in London

Thanks for your edits to Accessibility of transport in London - my (long-term) plan in future is to split the very detailed history section into Timeline of Accessibility of transport in London (because there's lots of good detail and history!) and then dramatically cut the history section down to size. Turini2 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on High Wycombe

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page High Wycombe, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • "Community Board Profile: High Wycombe" (PDF). Buckinghamshire Public Health. Buckinghamshire Council. Retrieved 25 February 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Unknown parameter |archive= ignored (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)