User talk:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple

Is there a reason you're suggesting using https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/ rather than https://historicengland.org.uk? The latter is the official record and the former is just a mirror. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: see User talk:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)#Comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - thought it might be something like that. There's probably a better way, but I don't know it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford:@Crouch, Swale: If a created bot is going forward to a community discussion for the approval that it should require, its text should conform to WP:UKVILLAGES guidelines and MOS. This should include not having the deprecated and superfluous 'located/situated' (in this context), and unnecessary wordiness. The text has the county town so that is fine and in line with guidelines, so good to name it as such. Best to keep the geographic stuff neatly together, not either side of a population detail. Farther, having a link verifying listed buildings to British Listed Buildings is not advisable. BLB is a very useful and more easily navigated site than Heritage England, but is not official, could be out of date with current listings, and is more likely to go down or disappear than Heritage England. Also the recommended 'Landmarks' instead of the traveloguey and vague 'Features', however neither; as there is no need for any irritating one sentence sections, it's best to get rid altogether. So:

Rattlesden is a civil parish in the Mid Suffolk district of Suffolk, England. It is approximately 15 miles north west of the county town of Ipswich. Adjacent parishes are Buxhall, Shelland, Gedding, Drinkstone, Brettenham, Felsham and Woolpit. In 2011 the parish had a population of 959. In 2020 there were 59 listed buildings in Rattlesden. Acabashi (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree with this change, I use the "Features" section for buildings and other things (like natural features) that can be mentioned. I'm fine with dropping it but I would expect some of the larger parishes will merit it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they would, 'Features' being somewhat vague, but probably fine on WikiVoyage... does anyone go there? All place aspects seem to be covered in WP:UKVILLAGES, however there are many times when there is not enough for all the aspects there to warrant having a section of their own, i.e. those with only a couple of sentences or less than something like 150 words. In these cases I take the closest section heads in the guidelines I can find that I believe can logically hold a number of aspects, while occasionally perhaps boxing or adapting accepted header titles to include such. This perhaps 'though not ideal, does avoid mini sections, and is so far seemingly not controversial as it does nod to guidelines. You might feel you are right about a 'Features' section, in which case you could add an argued suggestion on guidelines Talk here. Acabashi (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest I probably had settlement parishes in mind mainly when thinking about adding that heading such as Fulford, Staffordshire that will include other things (beyond listed buildings) like schools and other amenities. Given most of the ones left aren't settlement parishes and most features are going to be described in more detail in their settlement articles this heading might not be that necessary, see Draft:Great and Little Wigborough for example where the churches are covered in the village articles Great Wigborough and Little Wigborough but many parishes of such might contain other things like roman artifacts or similar that aren't in 1 of the villages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and it is difficult when the limited amount of stuff that can be found on a parish, and when added, tends to overweight—and can only overweight—the article to only one or two aspects. I also think you are right (in the articles you link; I've added distance temps), when there is very little geog stuff, not enough for a section (below the first sections 'History' then 'Governance'), to add this to the lead, as by convention, the raw geog stuff is the first sentence. Aside from that, when there isn't enough for anything else than very short sections, I tend to add the aspects—non sectioned—in separate paragraphs that reflect the rolling layout in WP:UKVILLAGES. I suppose, if there is substantial coverage of a particular landmark in the village or parent article, only a passing mention needs to be made in the parish. I find some difficulty lies when deciding where the boundary of the village is, and therefore where the wider parish begins... village entry signs at StreetView only sometimes help. A landmark rectory, culturally attached to the parish church in the village, but perhaps 900yds outside the village conglomeration, could be logically attached to either village or parish... I think there can be no fixed rule here, only editor judgement. What I do like is your using the Brit-style 'north west' or 'north-west', not the American 'northwest', which is a particular bugbear for me. Acabashi (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I tend go for brevity and avoid overwordiness in the lede first sentence, for example using 'in the county of', per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/Guide, and here is a link to the deprecated redundant 'located': Common words and phrases to avoid in WP:UKVILLAGES. After seeing this I began replacing it with 'situated', but this I felt was just as redundant, so don't use either now. Acabashi (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the point is that like with Commons categories where we generally always try to place a page under the most specific categories the same applies with content here. I'd merely mention the existence of the churches (and their names) in the "Great and Little Wigborough" article but include most content on the villages articles. I'd only include things in the village if sources say that they are in such place and it can clearly be seen to be in such place. Most churches are strongly associated with their village even if (like Little Wigborough) aren't in the village though. The ONS BUAs can be helpful but they are only used for places with 500 or more people. An example is Warwick Bridge where the settlements of Corby Hill and Little Corby are in the ONS BUA so if these were merged they should probably be merged with Warwick Bridge rather than Wetheral or Hayton. One other thing that I didn't include in the current RFC is how we deal with cases where a settlement (or other topic) that isn't notable and has to be merged with its parish such as maybe Nedging Tye which is currently located in Nedging-with-Naughton parish but until 1955 Nedging was a separate parish, would we merge with Nedging or Nedging-with-Naughton?. This is something that should probably be raised in a wider forum since it would apply to any abolished unit.

Yes I use this and the likes of "north north east" though the Gazetteer for Scotland uses "north northwest" see Draft:Rèisa Mhic Phaidean. To my awareness its quite common but not always done to state the county and I don't think it gets in the way too much and could be useful to the few that aren't familiar with counties. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A parish church will be associated with the parish as much with the village, the ecclesiastical parish often encompassing a civil parish or wider area, or perhaps often more or less the same area as the civil parish. Whether greater and major details of the physical ecclesiastical parish church is held in the village article or the parish article is debatable, as you have possibly alluded to above. And as the level of detail about the churches you mention at Great Wigborough and Little Wigborough (in Great and Little Wigborough) is abysmal, I would, and do in these cases, include more than a passing mention of the parish church in a parish article. As for if and how to mention counties in the lede, I tend to prefer to keep to accepted guidelines so that all settlements follow the same formula; if I come across others that don't, I change them... there are blue links for readers who are ignorant of what English counties are.

When it comes to compass points, Brit Eng for Wikipedia goes "north northwest" or "north-northwest". Acabashi (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Correction: just "north-northwest" per MOS:COMPASS. Acabashi (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]