Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 13 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)