User talk:Crouch, Swale

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

did you not know about the nomis templates?

• {{NOMIS2001|id=00MG004|accessdate=6 October 2025}} =>
  • UK Census (2001). "Local Area Report – (00MG004)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 6 October 2025.

Same or better than handcrafting for half the work. See also NOMIS2011, NOMIS2021 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: Thanks, I was aware of the one for the 2011 census but had assumed that there wasn't one for 2001 but I can now see that there is also one for 2021 as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are more forgiving than I am, then. I'd have assumed the existence of a NOMIS2001 and sworn loudly if it didn't work. Now why isn't there a {{NOMIS1891}}???!!!

"Progress is made by lazy people looking for easier ways to get things done" — Einstein, allegedly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Crouch, Swale. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IrelandRMArchive has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have handy a citation for Old Stratford#History re reversal of the respective fortunes? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: Added. In 1948 the parish of "Passenham" was renamed "Deanshanger" and in 1951 Old Stratford was formed from part of "Deanshanger" parish (which included Old Stratford village) meaning that the village of "Passenham" ended up in Old Stratford parish hence being reversed in less than 4 years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm. I should vhave thought of VoB.

But now I'm totally confused by https://visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10279586 which says that Deanshanger CP was abolished in 1951 but enlarged in 1956. How was that possible? (I'll look at VoB again tomorrow, it may be in the Old Stratford entry because it certainly doesn't include Deanshanger or Cosgrove now.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really should have waited until morning! Anyway, https://visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table/EW1971COU1_M3?u_id=10211232&show=DB&min_c=1&max_c=6 shows that by 1961, Deanshanger CP was alive and separate. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice (or was it the cat?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: I think VOB isn't always clear on this, see User talk:Stortford#Havant for another example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have updated Deanshanger and Old Stratford if you would like to review.

<rant on> At least VoB has some excuse because they are trying to decipher what happened years ago, when entity uniqueness in a database was an unknown concept. The ONS has no such excuse, when it used the name "Milton Keynes" for maybe 3⁄4 of the designated area, 2⁄3 of the urban area. <rant off> 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your change, but I'm not sure. My understanding is that, in this case, since creation of the civil parishes, the UuS CP is the town council. I suspect MapIt is scarfing its data from an unreliable (or old, pre-1960-ish) source. One tell of its inconsistency is that it refers to the Ordnance Survey, whose map disagrees with the OpenStreetMap's designation.

Still, is there an authoritative list, at the national or county level, of civil parishes? From this archive, near the bottom, we see a definition of the CP that references an apparently reliable book. Interestingly, List of civil parishes in Worcestershire does hyphenate the parish name but not the town name, but its sourcing is unclear. I think the hand-generated reference numbers are stale. David Brooks (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC) ETA: Oh, I just saw this 2003 listing from the ONS (last link on the page). It looks like hyphens were standard then. David Brooks (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks: Indeed the parish's council doesn't use the hyphens, it's quite normal for settlement, parish and parish council to have differences in hyphens etc and note that A Vision of Britain nearly always omits hyphens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy fixing the Radley and Upton CP red link (via Edge Hill, Warwickshire)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: I will write that article at some point. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Crouch, Swale

I see you've created a page for Little Stambridge. I agree it's notable enough to have a page and thank you for creating it. If I can make a few (hopefully constructive) suggestions for you to consider when creating such articles though.

The lead, and particularly the first sentence, should start in the present - if the place name is in use today, what is the place now? In the case of Little Stambridge, I'd say it's now best described as a hamlet in the parish of Stambridge. I'd leave what it was in the past for further down the lead, not the opening sentence, or in a history section of the main body. In other cases where the old parish name isn't used any more, then perhaps it would be better to say "X was formerly a parish in the county of Y. It was abolished in [year] and its area absorbed into Z" or something along those lines.

I understand that your particular interest is in the civil parishes, but for somewhere like Little Stambridge that was an ancient parish long before the civil / ecclesiastical split that crystalised in the 19th century, it seems odd to focus solely on the civil definition. Including the qualifier "civil" gives the impression that it wasn't any other kind of parish, which isn't true. For the early history, calling it a civil parish is an anachronism.

I see you've also done extensive work adding the last available population figure for former civil parishes. I'd recommend that these old population figures need context, and shouldn't be in the lead. I don't know if you saw the short discussion at Talk:Basildon#Is the 1931 population necessary notable enough for the introduction? Neither of the contributors there twigged that the reason you'd added it was because it was the last census before Basildon ceased to be a civil parish in 1937. I have started moving such old population figures to be alongside a discussion of the administrative history where the abolition of the parish is mentioned, so that the reason for quoting that year's population can be made clear, as I think you've noticed.

Hope those make sense and can be taken as helpful suggestions. Thanks. Stortford (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stortford: As far as former parishes go where it is clear that there is still a settlement or at least a named place on current maps such as Fenrother (which I wrote years ago and more recently published to mainspace) where even though it's not an OS settlement (hence it's a category 3 parish at User:Crouch, Swale/Northumberland/Exists) I have still used "is a hamlet in the civil parish of Tritlington and West Chevington" rather than "is a hamlet and forme civil parish, now in the parish of Tritlington and West Chevington" which I know you mentioned a few years ago you didn't think was appropriate, I personally don't think this is particularly bad when your dealing with minor rural places as long as all of the former parish (at the time it was abolished) is now in the parish the settlement is in but it sometimes happens that at the time the parish was abolished some land goes to another parish or some land in the former parish later ends up in a different parish so this could cause problems however I've followed what you have asked and not used "former parish" in the lead. I don't know why I added the 1931 population for Basildon to the lead?! looking back I added in back in 2021 and moved it out of the lead in November 2025. I think it's silly to add and old population figure for a parish for a town that has got much bigger. I have been following what you appear to have preferred recently namely to say "At the 1931 census (the last before the abolition of the parish), Little Stambridge had a population of 194". I am currrently going through my former parishes lists and I have been moving older population figures and "former civil parish" out of leads for some articles. Turning back to the article Little Stambridge although some sources do indeed describe it as a hamlet the name "Little Stambridge" doesn't appear on modern OS maps so I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe it as such but I don't object to doing so as sources do describe it as a hamlet and it does seem like the group of buildings around Little Stambridge Hall (of which 3 in addition to Little Stambridge Hall are listed). As far as some former civil parishes go like Tonge with Haulgh (a category 4 parish so unlike Little Stambridge probably doesn't have presumed notability but the article seems fine) where there was never a settlement it might be worth considering using {{infobox historic subdivision}} rather than {{Infobox UK place}} but Little Stambridge was a village and there is still a clear enough centre point. As far as EPs v CPs go I'm not sure this is that much different for former parishes than current parishes as most current CPs that are named after settlements such as Canewdon are also ecclesiastical parishes and yet we don't even mention this so I'm not sure why this would be significantly different for former CPs at least for those where the EP was also abolished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing I'd note is that when it comes down to times when things get abolished or change etc, when it is the subject of the article like Little Stambridge being abolished and we're in the history (or governance etc) sections (as opposed to the lead) I do include a citation for the parish being abolished and note the date as well but when it comes down to other changes like a parish being moved from a district (or county) to a different one or a former parish later ending up in a different district, parish or county I generally just put the year and I also don't add a source for a move of a former parish because it would be expected that the change in 1974 from Rochford Rural District to Rochford non-metropolitan district would be sourced at Rochford Rural District and Rochford District but not at Little Stambridge or even Stambridge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've now had a go at expanding Little Stambridge. See what you think.

On your point about parishes which are split between multiple neighbours on their abolition, I would say that once an administrative area is abolished, its former boundaries cease to have any particular relevance. We should note what happened to the parish on its abolition, but I don't think it's necessary to then track each bit of the former parish since then in order to tell its story - you end up tying yourself in confusing knots and can give the impression that (for example) some modern housing estates built long after the abolition of the old parish are still somehow claimed by the former parish the land was once in. Stortford (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stortford: Thanks but I'm a bit unsure about you removing the 1974 changes to non-metropolitan Rochford and Essex. Even though these aren't directly related to Little Stambridge, given it was a parish this might still be relevant. However we would not normally mention former districts in the lead except maybe for newly abolished ones, clearly for example which Isle of Wight district Ryde was in (Medina) would be an interest to very few so should clearly not be in the lead. With regards to former parishes I agree that most former parish boundaries cease to have much relevance after the parish is abolished, former parishes that were single parishes in urban districts that became unparished areas such as Winchester or became single unparished area districts such as Alverstoke and Gosport unparished area might be different but given as discussed that (1) unparished areas don't appear to be legally recorgized and even if they are they don't themselves function as administrative divisions and (2) as also previously discussed unparished areas are normally defined by the former urban districts rather than by former urban parishes. As far as mentioning about what parish a former parish later ended up in, I think this is relevant to a former parish artice and if known should be added. Consider a former district like Mildenhall Rural District where as well as mentioning about being abolished to form Forest Heath it also notes that in 2019 the area ended up being West Suffolk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've put a mention of the 1974 changes back in. Stortford (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello Crouch, Swale: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello Crouch, Swale, 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) 00:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall: regarding this request you stated "Oh, okay, thank you for clarifying. Thanks" does that mean you withdrew your contest? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Also, the Thanks is part of my signature. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 17:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall: if you don't' want people to think you're thanking them, you might have to remove the Thanks from your signature... it's not guaranteed that everyone will double check whether it's part of the sig or part of your written comment 😂  — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought it would be a nice touch, but I might indeed have to change or remove it. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it according to your original request, rather than let it sit at RM/TR. If you decide to open an RM, I would support a move back to its original title, but it's probably not worth the trouble. Either way, I agree the "The" definitely belongs. Station1 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Station1: thanks, the one in Essex might be the primary topic per views[[1]] but indeed the qualifier "England" is clearly incorrect per WP:UKPLACE as unlike Talk:Oxford High School, England#Requested move 14 March 2019 there is no overlap with the name and the county. If there was a RM back to The Gateway Academy that ended in "no consensus" it would be moved back. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, yes, no consensus would result in a move back, but I have seen cases where that didn't happen. It just depends on who happens to close it. Station1 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" could be understood to mean there is no consensus for the undiscussed move and the move should be reverted or it could mean no consensus for the Essex one to be primary and thus the previous title should continue to point to the DAB. There have been proposals for "no consensus" in primary topic discussions to always result in no primary topic but there has been no consensus for that but I guess the closer can use discretion though in borderline cases though. This issue did come up at Talk:Barsby#Requested move 22 November 2021, see User:BD2412/Archive 049#Barsby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]