User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)

Easton

@Wire723: Regarding the Easton, Pewsey Vale>Easton Royal redirect it seems like "Easton" is an alternative name for "Easton Royal" and thus we probably can just have 1 article for both. As the article explains the village was just "Easton" but it was mistakenly called "Easton Royal" but this became common usage. Funnily enough the reverse name were formerly used[1] where the village was called "Easton" but the parish was called "Easton Royal". When this is the case we tend to redirect the parish name to the village, see User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits. This is also the case with Cheverell Magna Ebbesborne Wake and Stratford Toney. I'm not opposed to having separate articles for Easton and Easton Royal but as noted unlike Langley Burrell Without v Langley Burrell it is generally standard not to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Wire723 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]