User talk:Nilfanion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

If you want to leave a message to me on any issue relating to Commons, or Commons-hosted imagery please leave it here. Please only leave messages on my en.wikipedia talk page if it is strictly an en.wikipedia matter.

Commons maintenance announcements [+/−]

More translations are needed for:

as of 18 February 2010


Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Common lands[edit]


Common lands do appear to be separate parishes, see and click on the map there is a small area which the parish includes. Maybe they are called that because the land was part of both parishes so they decided to create a small parish for land that was part of both parishes. I have posted this here as the issue of whether common lands are parishes or not was discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Common lands in England but as you have brought it up I have answered here as Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Common lands in North Yorkshire was only really for if those categories should exist although I have replied briefly there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not parishes in their own right.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How aren't they if they are marked on OS maps and appear in censuses, see also on Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Read my reply on the CFD - the best way of thinking of these areas is as part of both parishes. As an analogy see the diagram to the right. The highlighted area is in both A and B, but when drawing a "map" of A and B, it has to be shown as a distinct unit.
Likewise if a "census" was taken of people living in A and B, the people living in the highlighted area would need to be included separately - else they would be double counted.
Neither of those two facts makes the highlighted area a unit with equivalent status to A and B.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The (very good) example (image) that you have put I think is the answer but as I said I think from the maps that people are counted separately from the main parishes, I doubt that they would double count them. It probably means that the small area covered by both is a (small) separate parish as it would have included land formerly part of both parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope - they have to be treated as separate units for certain purposes. Those purposes require them to be treated as equivalent to a civil parish, but that does not mean they are treated as a civil parish for all purposes. And that treatment certainly does not mean that they are civil parishes.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful if we could find ways in which they are not referred to as separate parishes. Google isn't that helpful because of common land but I did find another historic one. It would indeed be useful to know a bit more about why they are called that because the name indicates that they would be part of both parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(This is without research and this may not apply in all cases). Historically, these areas have never been a single parish, or part of a single parish. Instead they have always been shared between the parishes. This sharing was done as it made management easier - no need to demarcate and police a boundary. If circumstances changed, a precise boundary would then be drawn removing the "common" area. Note that the confusion with the commons is to be expected - the main incentive for NOT marking a boundary is that the land is only used as common land, if it was used for something else it would certainly be within a single parish.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
They though can still be categorized as parishes though can't they? (at least until we find evidence against this). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Best structure is what is actually applied to Category:Lands common to Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. It is a sub-category of Category:Common lands in North Yorkshire, Category:Fylingdales and Category:Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. It is then accesible via its two parent parishes and from the CP listing. Same should be done for the other areas.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
After being reverted & to butt in here with regard to this reversion. Reading the above and to my knowledge there is no civil parish of Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre, it covers 2 different civil parishes – the civil parish of Fylingdales and the civil parish of Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. Keith D (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But the map indicates that it is 2 separate areas, the map shows the highlighted area that it covers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But the text you have reverted to indicates it is a single parish of Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre which is incorrect. Is should have separate links one to Fylingdales and one to Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. Keith D (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Keith D, and have reverted. The links are to the relevant articles (ie the two villages) - which are only suitable targets in absence of an article specifically about the area.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


I have gone through Category:Districts in England from w:List of English districts and made sure that all districts had categories, I split a few but none that don't already have articles on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds sensible - splits should only be done (at this stage), if Wikipedia draws a distinction between settlement and district, like with Fareham.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The ones that I did were Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Dartford, Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant. I wasn't using Wikipedia as a judge (but just as a guide) but it just happened that that was the ones that needed splitting, Tamworth for example wasn't split even though it has an article on Wikipedia because the boundaries of the town aren't significantly different to that of the district. We have less combined pages than those listed at w:WP:UKDISTRICTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that means Milton Keynes has now been split. That is fine, and something I think should be done. However, defining Milton Keynes isn't easy - as has previously been discussed.
I also note that I have already flagged some of our discrepancies from WP as inappropriate splits here (Birmingham for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was using the same guide from Fareham to determine what should be in what category for Milton Keynes. From UKDISTRICTS we have Birmingham, Coventry, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, Bournemouth, Middlesbrough, Peterborough, Reading, Southend-on-Sea, Slough, York, Cheltenham, Chesterfield, Christchurch, Corby, Gloucester, Northampton, Oxford, Redditch and Worcester while we don't have Tamworth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)