Talk:Scarisbrick (surname)

Anthroponymy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

CorenSerachBot copyvio tag

I have removed the copyvio tag from this article as I believe CorenSearchBot is in error. This article was created using content split from Scarisbrick, which first appeared in this revision way back in February 2005. The text on [1] is (c)2012, though it was also archived in 2007. PC78 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the note. For future reference, our license does require attribution when re-using content, even between articles. An edit summary like the one I added is considered sufficient attribution. Thanks for your work! Crow^Caw 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PC78: Digging further so as to close out the Bot case. The one edit in 2005 seemed to include other material which was taken from another site. The author added "Descriptions courtesy of Lancashire Parish Council", suggesting material had been copied, and the author was called on it. Even worse, the material as it stood in that 2005 edit is almost a perfect match for THIS], archived September 2004, but dated January 2004 (Comparison). So it looks like the material in the main article has been sitting as a copyright infringement since 2005, and it was only your fork that called attention to it. I fear I need to blank the article for review, though if you do wish to re-write it, there will be a page linked for that purpose. Sorry about that. Crow^Caw 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow: Thanks for the above comments, it's not easy trying to unravel such an old copyvio! I've had another look through the history of the original article, I believe the text added by Andy Scarisbrick in 2006 is ok, at the very least it doesn't appear to have been taken from the source linked above. Any chance we can restore that part of it for now? PC78 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little leery of adding that just yet. That text does appear verbatim on the .name source in later revisions, though a year after it was added here. I suspect the authors of the 2 internet sources were also involved with adding this content here, which is complicating the sort-out of it all. Still digging though. Crow^Caw 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PC78, Crow: I've a feeling we may never get to the bottom of this, though I believe Crow's analysis is very probably right, and our page and the external site were written by some of the same people. My suggestion is this: since the content was without one vestige of a reliable source, and given the doubts over ownership, no part of it should be restored. That leaves open whether the page should be left in its current state as a surname disambiguation page, or be developed into an article based on reliable sources, at the discretion of interested editors (PC78?). Does that seem reasonable? I've commented out, but not deleted, the heraldic description for the moment. PC, I'm sorry you should have run into this; unfortunately, it happens quite often that a good-faith split brings a skeleton out of the cupboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was really just shifting this stuff out of Scarisbrick to focus that article more on the actual settlement. I'd say leave this page as it is now. I may come back and add to it if the information presents itself, but a history of the family name isn't really what I'm interested in. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scaysbrook

Absolutely no problem with the derivation of the family name Scarisbrick.

What shouldn't be in here, though, is the name Scaysbrook which appears as a family name in East Anglia from the 16th century, and while phonetically very similar, actually derives from the Dutch village of Schiebroek near Rotterdam, and now a prosperous suburb of that city. In the fifteenth century it was spelt Schiesbroek, with the 's' being used as a possessive, in other words 'the brook of the River Schie.' In the 16th century religious pogroms resulted in a wave of immigrants to the Boston area of Lincolnshire, and in common with many immigrants adopted a surname derived from the town/country of origin.

Much research is needed on parish registers of births, deaths and marriages in and around Boston to establish reliable dates, our Scaysbrook family history so far goes back to late 16th century, when the family was established around Wotton in Oxfordshire.

Phillip Scaysbrook

Evenley

Northamptonshire Scazzi (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]