Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:29, 14 January 2025

I'm gone bye 👋...

Nomination of Gonerby Hill Foot for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gonerby Hill Foot until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Cheslyn Hay South for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheslyn Hay South until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lawley Furnaces moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lawley Furnaces. This is not ready for publication as you have misrepresented what the sources say. Only two of the citations fully support what they are supposed to. I have moved the article to draftspace where it can be improved. Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page, but do not move directly to mainspace without it having been verified first. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hopton Top Wharf railway station moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Hopton Top Wharf railway station. This is not ready for publication as you have misrepresented what the sources say. Either the citations do not support what they are supposed to or the sources are unreliable. I have moved the article to draftspace where it can be improved. Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page, but do not move directly to mainspace without it having been verified first. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Start a fresh.

Right I've calmed down. I've removed myself from the equation and now I'm willing to change. Now please @PamD, @Noswall59, @KJP1, @SchroCat and others. What about these articles needs changing. Please elaborate on each one and put the ones in front of me to sort out immediately. Fresh start, nothing more. New year, new learning. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you ask...

I think there are several ways in which you could change your editing for your fresh start.

Firstly, when considering creating an article on a topic, be sure that it is unquestionably notable. That doesn't just mean appearing on Google maps and getting mentioned by name, perhaps in a postal address, in a few sources. It doesn't just mean existing as a church which has regular services. It means having "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources: it means you having something non-routine to say about the place, church, or whatever. Yes, there's WP:NPLACE, where "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Civil parishes pass that bar. Areas of a city, suburbs, housing estates, business parks, etc don't automatically do so. I don't think wards do either, though opinions differ: to me, a ward is an area defined by a line drawn on a map for local electoral purposes, with a name of no significance to anyone outside the area, and has in general no place in an international encyclopedia. (That said, I think a list of wards or electoral divisions might well be a useful addition in the "Governance" section for a district or other entity to which people are elected by wards.)

Then, when looking at your sources, be sure that they actually support the statement you are adding to the article. Quite a lot of your refs seem to be "the place is mentioned in this source in google books so I'll add the reference to the article", rather than "here is a reference which supports this sentence about the place". Some of your references seem to lead to Google books links which don't make it at all clear why you're citing them. If the source is difficult to use, perhaps behind a paywall, or is a printed source, it can be useful to add the exact quote using the "quote" field of the ref.

But beyond that, it's editing carefully and taking note of things which other editors explain. I'm sure that someone has pointed out at some point that per WP:OPCOORD you don't need to, and in fact should not, give coordinates to 6 decimal points which is appropriate for an object about a metre/yard across, rather than a village. But on two days ago you created Gonerby Hill Foot to just that precision. (I'm calling it GHF from now on).

I spent quite a while today looking at that GHF article, so let's consider other problems with it as you left it:

• You left the article with its constituency showing as a red link: pretty obviously something was wrong, in this case you'd used "(parliament constituency)" instead of "(UK Parliament constituency)".
• "Town and Village Guide" is not a reliable source: for me, it shows up shaded in red when I look at an article as an editor: does it not for you? (It seems to be AI-generated with a lot of absolute rubbish: you might have been suspicious if you'd noticed that GHF was "once a thriving market town").
• I don't know what "Streetcheck" is, but I also don't know how it is defining "GHF" and where you got the 307 population from. It has a map showing an area which doesn't include the place labelled "GHF" on its own map. I doubt that the 307 figure is anything useful.
• "hill" is a standard English word and there's no need to link it
• Your ref 6 was nothing to do with the GHF school, but was an article about Gonerby House being used by The King's School, Grantham
• Your ref 7 was a link to a whole clutch of maps. If one of them actually illustrates "later residential and commercial developments", then make this clear
• You didn't create a talk page for the article.

It turns out that there is some interesting, reliably sourced, content, about GHF. I've expanded about the mounting block and Gonerby House, and@Rupples:, as I type, is going into details about civil parishes etc. I haven't yet added the Walter Scott connection (one of his characters falls into bad company at GHF), or the various mentions in old books about the Great North Road.

Your editing has improved over the years since stuff like this, from 2021, where you left a big blue map because the coordinates were wrong, put an Anglican church into a Catholic Diocese, didn't add any references, didn't format the External Links properly, linked to two disambiguation pages, and had a red link for grade listed rather than using a link to listed building. But there's still too many sources which don't seem to support the content, and bits of sheer carelessness. So perhaps slow down and produce a few carefully-polished articles, perhaps via AfC. The problem other editors have is that they don't like seeing badly-sourced, poorly-written articles about topics of questionable notability, which they know they can fix up to a better standard themselves but would rather see the original creator making a better job of, especially when it's an experienced editor who seems to create a stream of articles with problems needing fixing.

I've spent a lot of time today improving just one of your many recent articles, and I have changed my AfD vote from "weak keep" to "keep", but you can't rely on other people to tidy up after you. Please just take much more care. That quadruple checking you promised a while back seems to have slipped (how else to explain a redlinked parliamentary constituency?). Edit, then check, then check again and again if need be.

As I suggested a while back, you might like to have a go at some of @Crouch, Swale:'s Missing parishes. A civil parish is notable, usually has a parish council with a website, and a mention on the website of the next level up (district or county), and there's something which can be said about the places it includes; it can have an infobox with a map and there's usually a nice appropriate image of something central or general in Commons. But make sure that your sources support the statements you're using them to support.

As was said in the recent discussion, if you continue to add inadequately sourced material to the encyclopedia at the rate you have been doing, you may find yourself at WP:ANI, because people's patience will have run out.

If you're really going to "Start afresh" (yes, it's one word not two: you can "Make a fresh start", or "Start afresh"), then please slow down and edit much more carefully.

Well, you did ask. "New year, new learning" as you say - and there's always something new to learn about editing this amazing encyclopedia. Happy Editing! PamD 22:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@PamD: I think this is good advice. As another suggestion how about only creating articles about civil parishes directly and if you want to creat other types of things like housing estates or even wards to use AFC? In terms of our inclusion guidelines I think over the last few years they have got tighter and in terms of WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES I don't know if being an OS settlement (those that come up as "Other Settlement example search for Wangford as opposed to "other feature" which I would assume would not be considered legally recognized) qualiy as being legally regognized. Similarly although wards probably wouldn't be census tracts its not clear if they qualify as legally recognized as they don't really have local government like parishes do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay sure, I'll take some time to revert back to my earlier articles for like churches, suburbs and civil parishes. I'll take sometime to use my sandbox. Then put it to AfC and see what may or may not warrant an article as a standalone. Also I'll take sometime to fix my way of editing and spend sometime reworking my craft. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add or edit to certain parishes categories to help keep them all in their relevant places like I did with Dawley Hamlets and Wrockwardine. Is it possible @Crouch, Swale, some Civil Parish councils warrant an article? Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire? If AfC allows? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest rather than looking at creating articles for places within parishes to instead only create articles on the parishes. A parish like Category:Dawley Hamlets could maybe have its own category but I'd probably suggest generally only creating categories with 5 of more articles and as I said I'd suggest not to create (for now) places in parishes except with AFC. In terms of the parish councils I'd suggest being careful as most probably aren't notable Burbage Parish Council probably isn't notable. If you can find enough coverage some of the largest and most important parishes like Weston-super-Mare Town Council and Salisbury City Council might have articles but any where the parish name only exists as a parish like Dawley Hamlets or South Swindon should not be created as they would duplicate the parish article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say that a parish council is almost never going to need a separate article from the parish: please don't go down that road. PamD 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire seems totally unnecessary: I have proposed that it be merged into Burbage, Leicestershire, where it could form a "Governance" section. The reader does not benefit from fragmentation like this. Please do not create any more articles like this for parish councils. Thanks. PamD 23:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PamD and others have given you very good advice. Your following it, and your commitment to put any new article you want to create through the AfC process, should go a very long way towards avoiding future problems. That leaves the 400-odd articles you've created to date. I think you need to put the effort into identifying and correcting any errors that there may be. I'm willing to help you in doing this. I suggest you start at the top, with the most recent, and I will start with the oldest at the bottom. Look at each article through the lens Pam outlines. Is it unquestionably Notable, under our guidelines? Is there sufficient coverage, not mere mentions, in a range of Reliable Sources to support the Notability judgement? If there isn't, think about possible Merge locations, as Pam has done here, Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire. If that isn't the answer, think about proposing Deletion, as I did here, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gonerby Hill Foot, which has generated a wide discussion, and seen improvements to the article. I suggest we review, say, 20 each over the next few days, and then take a look at each other's inputs. Your undertaking to review your own work offers a real opportunity to show that you understand the policies/guidance on Notability and Sourcing, and are able to make appropriate judgements in these areas. It also gives you the opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to "starting afresh". KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".

If Dragon can misunderstand a source so badly, and add completely false and misleading information to the encyclopedia, is he safe to continue editing here? Was it tired (or worse) late night editing? What happened? I'm not sure that an AfC checker would have picked this up, as it's got a reliable source, although in this case totally misinterpreted. It's worrying. PamD 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It is problematic. As you know, some expressed a very firm view in the discussion on my Talkpage that it should go to ANI. Is that the consensus? KJP1 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that ANI would probably be a beneficial step. This would not be to get some punishment against DragonofBatley, but to get a consensus - logged into the record - that any further problematic content can lead to some form of punishment without the need for ANI again. Such editing restrictions are not uncommon where there has been an ongoing pattern of problematic behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There is relevant previous discussion at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 10#DoB (@Yngvadottir:) and at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.

I suggest we need to consider some system of restrictions which will protect the encyclopedia from Dragon's mistakes and careless edits, while if possible not totally depriving him of the joy of editing. (I can imagine how lost I would feel if this hobby was removed from me.) But I'm not sure what can be done. PamD 14:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that there is a consensus that this should go to ANI. I shall file a report tomorrow and notify User:DragonofBatley when I do. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1, PamD, and SchroCat: I can think of several restrictions that could be imposed either an official editing restriction or advisory, I'll start with the least restrictive. (1) You can only create new articles directly on civil parishes, all others need to go through AFC. (2) You can only create new articles (on any topic) through AFC. (3) You can only create new articles through AFC on civil parishes and can't even use AFC for other topics. (4) You can't create new articles on any topic even through AFC. Any thoughts on theses suggestions (including from DragonofBatley). I think some sort of restriction would help both the project as a whole and would also be helpful for DragonofBatley as it would reduce the amount of criticism you get. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

But not all the problematic editing has been in the creation of new articles: sometimes it's mangling existing articles, perhaps by confusing east with west or misunderstanding how {{convert}} works, so rules about article creation won't protect the encyclopedia in full. PamD 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As here, with edit summary "Overhauling article with new infobox tabs and removed an entry about a irrelevant church to the article" when the church in question, although originally built elsewhere, was moved to the village and rebuilt - though you had to read the second sentence of the paragraph to see this. Careless destruction. (I replaced the church). And the infobox apparently had the wrong constituency. PamD 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI are aware now so I will leave this to them to further discuss. I offered to change for good and actually work at the issues but ANI is still going ahead according to @KJP1, so it was not really something I could make viable if I tried because I'll fix my edits and still likely be restricted. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So ive just agreed to a new start and still editors want me to be restricted? So i made a pact to improve for nothing? ANI is now happening regardless? I apologise alright. If its too late. Then maybe i should just leave? I have made an effort to start like i did on Annesley South Junction Halt earlier with one source. This feels like its more about restricting regardless of agreeing to fix my ways. Is that fair assessment I have reached? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And if its about protecting the encyclopedia. Then it is clear I am the one who should be protected from editing. @KJP1, I think your jumping the gun wanting to take me to ANI. I see no concensus but three or four editors. I feel without wording it insultingly. That it is a case of tell me to stop ✋️, think 🤔 and stop ✋️. I have zero reasons to be restricted in terms of actually acknowledging my flaws and errors and agreeing to fix the ones needed. I cannot do that if I am then restricted further from fixing them and being able to edit. I have contributed good articles to such as may I bring to mind 10 articles. Where I have been thanked and good rating given:

• St Lawrence's Church, Bardney
• Borough of Chesterfield
• City of York
• Borough of Middlesbrough
• City of Peterborough
• Dawley Hamlets articles
• Cromford and High Peak Railway
• Borough of Slough
• Central Methodist Church, Lincoln
• Borough of Blackpool

These are just some examples of the many articles I have created that actually have benefited the encyclopedia and I helped to give them a platform. Similar to Lawley Village railway station, Spring Village railway station, Doseley and Wasps Nest among others. So i have done good too. It hurts to be honest, I feel this is robbing me of a chance to actually improve when I have said this time I will actually begin to do so and agreeing to AfC. That feels like it was a false positive and promise.

I dont know what more I can do to prove it when I have agreed to i dunno anymore. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Review of existing contributions - train stations

Further to the above; the 400-odd articles broadly break down into three categories:

• Places - hamlets / villages / parishes / wards / suburbs / economic areas;
• Churches;
• Train stations.

On Notability, we have WP:GEOLAND, etc. for Places; we have similar for Churches, and Misplaced Pages:Places of local interest, including whether they are Listed. I am much less sure about the Notability of train stations, particularly former train stations. Looking at this, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, both sources seem to be blogs, although the first does look very well-researched, and appears to be used in many articles. And looking at this, Checker House railway station, it is clear that at least some of the articles are capable of significant expansion. I've asked a question, here, which may help. Does anyone have thoughts/experience on how best we assess Notability for these? KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

On stations, I've found a discussion at WP:RSN about RailScot which concludes that it is not a WP:RS (so wouldn't support notability) but can be added as an External Link, like IMDb. Non-notable stations could be redirected to articles on the line they are on, which will mention them but perhaps only in a route map which needs to be clicked open for "find in page" to work - eg Great Central Main Line. PamD 10:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Helpful again. I've AfD'd one that was very weakly sourced , and we may well be able to use the outcome of that discussion when considering the others. KJP1 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1. From my involvement in AfDs of railway stations, if found not notable the consensus is to redirect or sometimes merge to the railway line they are on. A difficulty is where a station serves more than one line, but this type is more likely to be notable. Rupples (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Annesley South Junction Halt railway station for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Annesley South Junction Halt railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

KJP1 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI advice

Hello, DragonofBatley,

I was reviewing the ANI discussion you started and wanted to offer you some advice. I think the best way to handle to an ANI complaint is to make an initial statement, laying out your side of the story and then only post to respond to questions that are raised where editors are seeking to hear your answer. Do not comment on every single post made by other editors or you could be digging yourself into a hole. If you find yourself repeating the same point over and over (like your "joke edit"), then it's definitely time to stop talking about it. It could also be seen as BLUDGEONing a discussion and, to be perfectly honest, posting dozens of comments can annoy editors who review cases on AN and ANI and it's better to have their support.

I know there is an instinct to defend yourself when you are being discussed but it is often best to just comment when your response is solicited so you don't overwhelm the conversation. No one enjoys being brought to ANI so I was very surprised to see you open this case about yourself but, so far, it looks like everybody is being relatively reasonable. Good luck on obtaining an agreeable resolution. Liz 00:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, thanks for your post. I will take your suggestion on board. I tried to only respond where needed. But will make sure to only do so when needed. Thank you kindly. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

DoB Potential articles for consideration/exploring in future list:

A list of places/landmarks I believe could warrant a place in Misplaced Pages articles. (Feel free to discuss my suggestions below) These were ones I had in mind to begin with.:

• Places of Worship (Chapels, Churches, Mosques etc):
• Shropshire/Telford and Wrekin
• Christ Church (Wellington) - Grade II listed church, built in 1838.
• All Saints Church, Wellington - Grade II* listed church, built in 1788. - Currently awaiting Articles for Creation feedback and decision. (Now live)
• St Peter's Church (Wrockwardine) - Grade I listed church, built in the 12th century.
• Holy Trinity Church (Wrockwardine Wood and Trench) - Built in 1833.

• Places that could be notable:
• Shropshire/Telford and Wrekin
• Arleston (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Ercall (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Dothill (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Apley Castle - A settlement between Leegomery and Wellington.
• Sutton Hill - A suburb of Madeley
• Hadley Manor - An area of Hadley
• Trench Lock - An area of Trench
• Horton and Hoo - Small settlements in the Hadley and Leegomery Parish
• Wombridge - A suburban area north of Oakengates
• Red Lake - An area between Ketley and Oakengates
• Ketley Bank - A suburban area of Oakengates

These are mostly areas of interest right now. I will begin on my sandbox. Ask for input from editors at AfC and I can only do 5 at any time until one has been either approved or rejected. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently completed All Saints Church, Wellington. Link to draft page here . Also hopefully shows I am keeping to my agreement of AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

On the churches, St Peter's Church, Wrockwardine has a very detailed and mostly well-sourced section in the village article, and as of a couple of minutes ago it has a redirect from its own name, and an entry in the dab page at St. Peter's Church. It doesn't need a new article. Holy Trinity Wrockwardine Wood is grade II listed, but might be better covered in a section of Wrockwardine Wood as there doesn't seem to be much to say about it.

On the "suburbs" and "areas": please don't create articles on vaguely-defined places, or electoral wards. That's what has led, at least in part, to the present situation: you have had to scrape the barrel to find sources, and not all of them have been good (think "haven, village"). Stick with clearly identifiable topics on which you can find good reliable sources.

Please read the various talk page comments on All Saints Church, Wellington, and note the work done by other editors on it, and learn from them. Thanks. PamD 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I will. I will also use the sandbox for my articles. See if sources exist and if there is any notable evidence or notability it could be given an article at AfC. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If nothing exists for it, I will not attempt to make it. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: All Saints Church, Wellington has been accepted

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!