Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.

Hello.

Can you edit File:Halifax Montage.jpg by changing the dark photo File:Halifax Town Hall - geograph.org.uk - 2198902.jpg with this photo File:Town Hall, Halifax - geograph.org.uk - 1542645.jpg and also by changing the mosque photo File:Central Jamia Mosque Madni Halifax - geograph.org.uk - 348726.jpg, whose view is blocked by boxes and trash, with this photo File:Central Mosque - Gibbet Street - geograph.org.uk - 868139.jpg? It is the same mosque, but without objects blocking its view.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.15.32 (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher): Done that for you, 31.200.15.32. Rcsprinter123 (pitch) 14:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Newark is situated at a geographical distance from the cities of Nottingham, Lincoln and Leicester." mean? PamD 18:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Geographical distance is the distance measured along the surface of the earth. The formulae in this article calculate distances between points which are defined by geographical coordinates in terms of latitude and longitude. This distance is an element in solving the second geodetic problem."

According to the article of the same name Geographical distance. I put it as that to simply mean the town is at a geographical distance from the three cities. If you go Newark, the A46 is actually a good example for use of the name. Lincoln is north, Nottingham is southwest and Leicester is south. It might not sound like an appropriate term but the word is a real word. I think it's very formal DragonofBatley (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely everywhere that's not Nottingham, Lincoln or Leicester is a geographical distance from Nottingham, Lincoln and Leicester? Better to specify the distance. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have quoted two "sentences" not just one, from Dragon's version: "Newark is situated at a geographical distance from the cities of Nottingham, Lincoln and Leicester. Which are 21 miles (34 km), 19 miles (31 km) and 40 miles (64 km) respectively." But a sentence should have a meaning as it stands, and also "geographical distance" here is unnecessary. PamD 08:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about Cheshire not existing as a political unit since it's now made up of unitary authorities. But it does still exist in law as a ceremonial county, meaning for the purposes of the lord lieutenancy. Historic county and ceremonial county and non-metropolitan county all mean something different. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite so confusing as English local government :) Dgp4004 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dgp4004, thanks for your post. Yea I get what your saying about it still having references and some ceremonial use. I'm mirroring the exact same scenario as Shropshire and County Durham. Which are both now technically historic counties even though a unitary authority covers the rest of County Durham aside from Darlington Stockton on Tees and Hartlepool which are already seperate before from county council. And same was with Telford and Wrekin in Shropshire. Seperate to the county council at the time. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the County Durham and Shropshire pages to be honest. But they both still exist as ceremonial counties too. The ceremonial counties haven't much changed since 1974. The only ones to have been abolished are Avon, Cleveland, Hereford and Worcester, and Humberside. Check out the Ceremonial counties of England page which has a really good map :) Dgp4004 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit: please remember not to put a space before a reference. And also please check that your sentences are sentences: "Which means that of the 39,927 local population." is not a sentence. I see that another editor has corrected that paragraph for you (by removing some of your ungrammatical text, and cleaned up the space before the reference too), but please check what you type and make sure that it is in decent English. You should also check your links to be sure that you are not linking to a disambiguation page or other unintended page, as in "No religion". Thanks. PamD 20:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks PamD will bear that in mind for future reference ta DragonofBatley (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember! See Salford Cathedral (I've removed the space). 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as one of your recent edits on Milton Keynes has been reverted by John Maynard Friedman, it would be helpful for you to participate in the discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes and share some of your thoughts on the matter, and understand why it is that your edit has been undone. Thanks :-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me, I just thought as it's been widely called a town. It was classed as a town. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robertsky were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– robertsky (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – robertsky (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remember to use them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chorus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Manchester.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think all districts with city status should use "Metropolitan Borough" then probably a wider discussion should happen rather than just moving one article of which WP:UKDISTRICTS says to use "City of" for districts with city status. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crouch, I understand what your saying but many editors are contesting it or at least three or so have. Anons keep changing it and others do as well to Salford Metropolitan Borough. I tried a concensus at the last discussion and it was put that it should say Salford Metropolitan Borough. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove "English" from a lead sentence without adding "England", as you did here and here: remember this is an international encyclopedia, and not all readers will recognise the names of UK counties (I struggle to remember whether some US states are US or Canada). I see other people have now fixed both these. Thanks. PamD 14:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that every sentence needs a verb. You left Lillington, Warwickshire with the text: Historically a village which existed before the time of the Domesday Book (1086). It was incorporated into the borough of Leamington in 1890. Please check your edits to a page before you move on to another page. I've corrected this to Historically a village which existed before the time of the Domesday Book (1086), it was incorporated into the borough of Leamington in 1890. Thanks. PamD 06:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forest of Dean District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coleford.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating Christ Church, Blakenall Heath. When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Christ Church ), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find the new article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 10:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more appropriate to have East Riding of Yorkshire about the whole ceremonial county and the district disambiguated per WP:DABCONCEPT? What I'm saying is that East Riding of Yorkshire (county) should probably be moved back to East Riding of Yorkshire. Also note that a unitary district is an administrative county so East Riding of Yorkshire (ceremonial county) would otherwise be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its been redirected back but if we/you decide to re-create/restore the district article then I'd point out that with the places that say in the "East Riding of Yorkshire" instead of just linking to the district like here it would probably be better to write "in the East Riding of Yorkshire district, in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire", thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lincoln, England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heighington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mickleover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashbourne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DragonofBatley! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 👍🙏 DragonofBatley (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is it true?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all Nottingham, how can you say that one bit is outside of it when there is a clear conurbation? Or do you deny this as being the place over which you are arguing? Sportspop (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the Wikigeography page, I don't understand your reasons for changing the lead from town to suburb. You do know the difference right between a town and suburb? One has an established centre and administrative role (if applicable) aka a town. A suburb is an area of a town or city which is under a ward for the city and acts for overspill for that settlement.

West Bridgford has a long established history prior to Nottingham even being a city and your mashing under a suburb. Here the definition of suburb "an outlying district of a city, especially a residential one." - Google search definition.

A town is this "a built-up area with a name, defined boundaries, and local government, that is larger than a village and generally smaller than a city." - Google search definition.

Your arguments fall on deaths ears and as I've said there is already other towns next to Nottingham like Arnold Bulwell Carlton Bingham Beeston Sandiacre Hucknall etc and they are towns. Not suburbs despite forming a large part of the city urban area.

West Bridgford is separate from it by the Trent hence why it is under Rushcliffe part of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham is seperated by the Trent and of the county council which is what west Bridgford if part of and the base for. County hall.

I don't understand why you argue to use suburb when it's not even a district of the city. It's not like Wythenshaw in Manchester or Speke in Liverpool or even Mickleover in Derby. It's a seperate town and not classed as a suburb.

London is different as its green belt and suburbs were already established. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley

I don't understand what you are trying to do to High Peak, Derbyshire, but I am sure it is well-intended.

However, please could you

• use a sandbox to experiment to avoid cluttering the article's history with test edits
• use edit summaries when editing the article
• avoid bad reverts, like this[1] and this[2].

Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:, Thanks for your comment, I am just adding image skylines like i did on South Derbyshire etc. Just to add some more photos to the district and help them look more appealing to read. Just a minor thing really :). Thanks for your other well-intended as it is for the benefit of readers of the article :) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images sounds like a nice idea. But do please use edit summaries to explain what you are doing.

And since this doesn't seem to be something that's easy to get right first time, please test it in a sandbox until it's working. It's not helpful to have the article's history cluttered with lots of test edits. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derbyshire Dales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashbourne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep abusing this page. A quick inspection reveals you aren't even a resident of this town, yet you feel entitled to continually edit it to fit your obvious agenda. For any medium-sized town like Solihull, our independence is our identity. Basic research will highlight the reality that we are fully independent. We feel bullied by you. You are ruining this page and trying to detract from our identity. Please leave the Solihull page alone. Myself and another user have complained formally to Wikipedia about you and your malicious edits. SolihullResident96 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right 👍, in the words of myself. Reporting an editor for something minor is a waste of time. If you want to have a sensible debate. Then please reply with a better decorum in your wording and not self entitlement. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, New user account set to bully and harass?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheffield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hillsborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your suggestion of a new image. Can I propose this one instead, which shows a more general view of the building, is in clear daylight and is a higher-resolution file?

Bellminsterboy (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellminsterboy thanks for commenting on here. I'd be happy to agree with you on a new image for Rotherham Minster. What I was gonna say is that a different photo and author or the same one from before? The one you've posted on here? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think personally this one:

would be a better suited one. Maybe a bit of tweaking but it shows the full front of the minster where you enter central tower and spire. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, the photo I suggest is a different author and has no further use on wikipedia. That one is an improvement on your previous suggestion I feel, but does not show the majority of the building, only its west front and the spire. It is also not as technically good as the one I suggest, and the focus on the far left and far right of the photo is a bit soft. There is also people in that photo. Bellminsterboy (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One that could be split is Worcester as there is no district or district council article and it does contain 2 parishes and did have significant boundary changes in 1974 but the boundaries are similar to the settlement. Either a City of Worcester/City of Worcester, England district article or a Worcester City Council article could be created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinckley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please always check your edits, and don't leave the lead of an article with two unnecessary red links as you did in this edit. (Immingham Docks is now a redirect to Port of Immingham, but only because I created it just now. Cleethorpe Beach was never going to be a valid link, but even when the missing "s" is added we have no article or redirect on Cleethorpes Beach or Cleethorpes beach.) Thanks. PamD 07:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay sorry PamD I have carefully checked my edits a lot lately. I'm not sure why the advanced editing link finder on wiki didn't notify me a page of those names does not exist unless I added redirects to the towns or a category list. Dually noted I'll check twice next time regards DragonofBatley (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rochford District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rayleigh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t sure about cations I was using The Doctor (Doctor Who) article which doesn’t go into caption detail. It does link to the corresponding article to the pictures on the template and wanted to see if somebody commented. Should a "click photo for each picture" be used or bring the full captions back.

It does seem like you could have reinstated the caption without reverting the template then message me or was it the template you didn’t like as well.

I don’t get why the template aligns left in the infobox (by the way) do you know how to align it to the centre or is it just how it works. Maybe 250px or 260px might mean it’s not noticeable.

I’ve only done it on 2 articles, is implementing the template (the caption untouched or some other thing) worth adding to others, I’ve just got my head around it and wanted to use it. Your collages are quite good, I’ve tried and failed to do one myself it’s either crop or find photos that are just right ratio-wise. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You already don’t "consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone." – Wikipedia:Reverting

"insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) – and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues" –Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling

It would be good to try and discuss before reverting by messaging users or in the article talk page with a ping to the user you want to revert than charging in. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolateediter I have no issues with your edits but you keep adding things like railway station or city hall to the leads and you took away a lot of towns from Leeds and Bradford leaving Keighley and Wetherby.

The lead summary is about the location not landmarks or historical significance.

That's all mentioned in the article. The repeating information of grade listed or examples of landmarks in leads doesn't work.

It's best to be below the lead summary and not in the direct top lead summary.

I have no issues with your edits but repeating information or irrelevant information for that lead summary geographically will be removed. Also Huddersfield needs Kirklees in lead for those unaware of where in West Yorkshire it is. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move important articles with carefully chosen titles without discussion. The lake is Windermere, not "Windermere lake"; the title "Windermere (Cumbria)" is malformed as a UK settlement name, as comma disambiguation is used, and the existing version with "(town)" has been arrived at as the clearest way to disambiguate town from lake. If you want to propose a move, or a pair of moves, then do so with a formal move request. These were not uncontroversial moves, and I have reverted them (having to ask for help with the second one). PamD 23:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request for Missing Articles for England? only the other day and then it got archived so I'm replying here. All I would say is - be cautious about this sort of thing. I'd suggest you first read WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_gazetteer and WP:Notability_(geographic_features)#Geographic_regions,_areas_and_places, in particular Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable...Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
This last point is key, you need to think about what a place's WP:Good article would look like, and whether there's enough reliable sources to allow a good article to be created. If not, the article is better as a redirect to the next level up.
I'd also note the advice in WP:UKTOWNS : Writing about the very smallest settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material. If there is no likelihood that an article could ever expand beyond a stub, the place should be dealt with in the article of the smallest notable area in which it lies, such as the council ward, civil parish, community (in Wales), or town, etc.
I have some experience from a task I gave myself some years ago sorting out the comuni, the basic administrative units in Italy. There's 7,904 comuni in total, corresponding to something between a parish and a town council in British terms; they typically cover about 5000 people but can go up to Rome size. Each comune typically has a couple of frazioni, which are legally recognised subdivisions of the comune each covering an outlying hamlet. In some cases those outlying hamlets have eg grown to become internationally-famous ski resorts like Breuil-Cervinia but whilst in theory there could be 30k articles on frazioni there are only 1,125 and there seems to be an equilibrium between new ones being created and others being merged back into the parent comune article. It's a bit different in the UK as we don't really have a level of "legally recognized places" below the parish. We need to have an article/redirect for every parish, but I'd guess that like Italy <5% of the "suburbs, hamlets or villages etc" below parish level have sufficient sources and notability to merit an article rather than a redirect and if they haven't already had an article written about them by now then there's probably no great rush to create them.
To be honest, our readers don't really need lot more stub articles about minor places, the desperate need is to improve the articles that our users want to read - which means WP:Good articles about towns and cities that can be getting 1000s or 10,000s of views a month yet can often be in not-great shape. Assuming you're in Batley, you've got local examples such as Birstall, West Yorkshire and Denby Dale which are not in great shape, and Holme Valley which has almost nothing in it. The big one locally, Huddersfield just needs a final push to get it up to WP:GA for the 170,664 people who read it annually. In fact it's a fairly good rule of thumb that article's annual readership is a bit more than the population of the place - so an improvement to an article about Huddersfield benefits about 10x as many readers as a similar improvement to Birstall, which in turn will be benefit about 10x as many readers as the same improvement to Hightown.
If I was you, rather than messing about with the little stuff I'd try and get some local towns up to GA status, perhaps go for a WP:Good topic of "The parishes of Kirklees" or similar, then perhaps do the same for City of Wakefield and maybe even West Yorkshire. A good place to start is restructuring an article using the "Sample headers" on the right of WP:UKTOWNS, then adding one fact with a high-quality reference to each section, then look around for Wiki articles on local landmarks like the railway station, which should give you more material and ready-made references. Then have a look at some UKgeo featured articles and good articles for similar-sized places to get an idea of what else to include, by then you should be well on the way to a WP:GAN. FlagSteward (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you mean to set Norwich to importanceo=low for WikiProject East Anglia? It seems like a major topic for the region. Certes (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

With your moves of the Birmingham to Worcester via Kidderminster / Bromsgrove lines, I can confirm that the names mentioned in your recent moves are NOT the official line names. The names before you moved them are the official ones and not the ones you have moved the names to. I will revert them back to the official names. Kind regards, Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have now been reverted back to their previous names.

Kind regards, Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill in edit summaries while editing so that other users can see what has been done, I’ve been pulled up on that before that’s why I do my edit summaries the way I do.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties to help if you’re not sure if the intro should include something or not, remember the type of county as well since each have slightly different list of things to include.

PS, I like pictures with nice clear days so I if I’m removing some of your pics it’s because of that and if some are found on other articles on Wiki. They are just some of my fastidious habits that I try to keep at bay. Sorry if it winds you up at all it’s annoying for me too as I spend ages on the smallest things. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's fine and yeah I'm not offended. But would you be willing to find a different Bradford photo as the town hall seems to appear all the time in photos and really Halifax should be given a photo in your infobox as it is the centre of Calderdale but it's missing from the photos but Huddersfield and the other cities are in it. I will add a photo of Halifax as it is important to note it in West Yorkshire and an important centre for Calderdale. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating Vigo railway station (England). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Vigo railway station), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find the new article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 09:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing with navigation applies to churches: there is always (well, usually) a list or disambiguation page, like St. James' Church or Saint Giles (disambiguation), to which it's useful to add any new church article. That way whether the reader is looking for "St" "St." "Saint", name with or without apostrophe, etc, they have more chance of finding your article if they don't know the exact title under which it's been created. I've added a handful of your recent church creations to the appropriate pages (see my contribs list), but please start to do this yourself to help readers to find the articles you create. Thanks. (I think there probably needs to be a disambiguation page of some sort to help readers navigate between the various St/St./Saint Mary('s) in/of the Wood(s) - a town, a college and a collection of churches including your Morley one - but I'll leave that for another day!) PamD 11:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry PamD I thought the disambiguation page would have read it as it appears to be Vigo in Spain as two articles alone. I thought like with Washington. It would link it properly but I will have a check of it. Also I moved St Mary's in Woods Church as it appeared I missed the apostrophe and the s but it seems to be spelt differently on certain pages. I was looking for the official name of it from the congregation page. But I'll keep an eye on those edits when I make them. Was trying to correct any wrong doings that I made with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Biddick Lane railway station. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn:, no worries and thanks for your comment. Took a bit of researching but I came across them on Railscot although I think Wikipedia is fazing out using it as a source but the site seems to have junctions and stations nailed to a t as these don't appear on Historic Rail and Canal Maps sites or os side by side maps. But glad to have helped DragonofBatley (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Dorset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thanks for creating this article. I did a bit of tidying up. By chance I'd done a little bit of work on Richard Coles recently (after enjoying reading his book Death Before Evensong). If you search on "Steinbachek" you'll see that he gets a mention in 27 articles where you could usefully link to this new article, while there are only four articles linking to him at the moment, so you might like to add some more links. Steinbachek waas a redirect to Bronski Beat until I fixed it a few minutes ago - always worth checking for a surname entry for someone when you creater a biography, whether it needs to be a new redirect (or an amended redirect as here), or a hatnote or surname list entry. Thanks. PamD 16:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, it was The Communards I worked on recently. PamD 17:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions over your Salford edits, for starters why reinstate the old collage?

A city has many areas to it, Lincoln for example has an up hill centre (Cathedral & castle) & down hill centre (Branford Island/ Cornhill); Stoke (6towns) and Sunderland (Roker). Town-wise Hartlepool has three; the resort of Seaton Carew, the old Headland town and the main one in the middle all quite away from each other.

Salford Quays may be separated from the town hall area and Greengate by Ordsall(of which judging by developments is well on its way to becoming part of the city centre), it doesn't make it any less Salford. Greengate is 2mi from Salford Quays so I don't understand "Salford Quays is more greengate then Salford itself" when Salford Town Hall is 1.5mi from the quays. The town Hall and Greengate both come off Chapel Street so both can really be counted as extremes of the main Chapel Street centred city centre. In the guide it says 6–8 pictures so I wasn't in anyway cluttering the infobox. With the old 1 2 1 collage it has way too much height, in contrast my collage that got to halfway down the last picture of the old one and yet showed 6 definitive landmarks or views of the city than 1 twice a shopping centre and a city view. On hindsight I need a swap the top 2 and bottom 2 since it is supposedly the standard to have views of the city at the top.

Why have the edit description "I'm sure you meant Pendleton as Pendlebury is a seperate as a town and closer to Swindon then Salford"?

I was looking at the BUASD map from 2011 and putting in what was inside the area, Pendleton was a zoom closer than I had it when I was looking around, Pendlebury to the north west and up the Irwell a bit more was in the BUASD area, so Pendleton was needed to be added but not as a replacement to Pendlebury. I'm sure Swindon is an autocorrect for Swinton as that through me off a bit thinking that you thought I'd put a place in Wiltshire.

As for me using formerly governed over historic county it is my compromise attempt to avoid the whole historic counties exist or don't exist and say it was governed formerly under Lancashire, since it is correct and it can be said by these people that it is still Lancashire just not in the governing aspect anymore.

One thing I don't like about shopping centres, especially in infoboxes, is that they tend to be full of national brands and not the local businesses. Bear in mind on a 2D map Salford Shopping centre is the centre of the Salford area. Salford city centre however developed in a meander for fortification purposes and to be opposite Manchester which is an older settlement.

The heavy industry found a wider bit of the river and was refocused to being a media industry therefore giving the city a centre focusing on something the other centre doesn't have.

If you can ping back when you see this with what you want to say so that I know which way you're thinking because I'd like to revert the edits and will take in anything I might miss that I agree that I should edit differently this time round. I'm a bit long winded I can't help it, sorry for the long message at a random time. Chocolateediter (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter:, thanks for your post on my talk page and I will try to simplify my responses to you below this line:

So I can see you raised about five points to me from reading the whole of your post and I will take one at a time to simplify an answer and my own justification for these slight edits:

1: In regards to greengate and Salford Quays. Now that one is because I have done thorough research and that part of Salford is newer than the older parts and if you take into account Ordsall. It is an original district of Salford and Greengate isn't. It does stand to reason Salford needs some further clarity but the areas in question do not really have much of notability other than what, MediaCityUK? thats a bout it but nothing major whereas Ordsall has Ordsall Hall and it is an older district. I think atm there is not a lot of good photos of greengate to be seen as they merely just represent skyscrapers and too many skyscrapers in a photo lead can be a bit too modern-focused from looking at say USA and other city articles like Birmingham and even Manchester.

2: Your point on BUASD is that, BUASD which is not official materail. Pendlebury and Pendleton are areas of City of Salford. That is not disputed but I urge you to take a brief look at the map of Salford and see where places like Walkden, Eccles and Swinton are. These towns are technically suburbs of Salford and my main gripe against the wider City of Salford is there is not a single civil parish of note. The whole city district is unparished and would like Manchester. Be better to be merged and all redirected to Salford itself. It seems to cause mass confusion and I might make a merge discussion later on. But to answer the question, Pendleton is a district of Salford (Along with Broughton and Ordsall) but Pendlebury is a seperate town and merged with Swinton prior to the city district forming. If Pendlebury is classed as an area of Salford, then why isn't Eccles and Swinton?

3: Shopping centres are just that, and as it has a huge tower the city centre also in Pendleton. It is just showing the main city centre.

4: The collage was reverted because it reused a few photos from below the article like the town hall and cathedral one was not as good as the aerial one showing the building as a whole. If you could find newish or more variety photos of them it would look good but it is limited atm photos of the cathedral and other areas due to older photos and not many newer ones.

5: Salford might have developed at a meander but the city is older than Manchester in the fact it was a historic hundred and county of Lancashire known as Salfordshire. This covered a wide area including Manchester and many parts of Greater Manchester like West Derby isn't a town or city but a suburb of Liverpool. Yet was a hundred and not Liverpool meaning it was around longer. I could debate this all day but that is my response to the final point you raised.

So overall, my edits are quite well placed and not nefarious in any way. I am just quite not WP:Owning but one of many watchful editors on that article due to it being subject of vandalism and misinformation by some users. I have actually not really got anything against your collages but that one on Warrington felt dignified given the parish church was not used and is a prominent landmark on the towns skyline with its spire but that was left as is. I might edit odd photos but only if I feel either a better photo could be used or something of more interest is better placed. Many do it to me and your not the only one.

I hope I have answered your points with honesty and openness. Please respond if you wish to have a further discussion or draft ideas for Salford. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They is an issue of Salford seeming to be centreless as Manchester has dominated the city and now it is fighting back in a build around then inwards approach to building a strong centre and Ordsall is going from residential to fields at the moment then to come will be a very dense city centre. Salford Quays (particularly MediaCity) is corporate however the city council has tried to develop it locally with a market and museum. Pendlebury is the closest area to Salford centre out of it, Swinton and Eccles and therefore in the 2011 census NOMIS decided it wasn’t enough to be its own settlement while Swinton and Eccles were. Salford Quays existing also caused Trafford Park and other areas to be counted.

Pendleton seems like Coulby Newham to me(as I can compare to Middlesbrough best), Salford originally developed near a river and couldn’t expand out in a circle so it needed a second police station and so on when it expanded and Pendleton fit the bill but it is still not the centre until Ordsall connects it. I’ll use an unparished area map and add more areas of the city to the infobox when we’ve agreed on things.

I can assure you no pictures were in the article or other important articles already, the town hall picture in article is zoomed in while the one I had was showing the square a bit and under different lighting. I’d like to have them back on, the aerial view can be kept as “the skyline” and I’ll go for a 2 3 2 arrangement. My collage’s swing bridge picture is rubbish I need to find a new one. Collages need scrutinising to make sure they are the best, sometimes I think I use too many good images in the infobox and forget that they are meant to be more in the article.

Manchester is Roman, it collapsed and grew to be bigger than Salford which came about in the middle Middle-Ages. Westminster and London seem to have a similar dynamic but Salford’s administration ultimately wasn’t strong enough, it managed to keep its separateness a little bit more but is less well known very odd but it clearly happens.

I think we need an inner, outer, influenced and not but in council area Salford definitions. I’d say inner is the uni campus, Pendleton, Quays, Greengate and Ordsall (Irwell–Broadway–the Langworthy Roads–Broughton Road–Irwell). Outer = North of the Irwell, A576, M602, Swinton Greenway, A6 and somehow get back to the Irwell. Opposite the Quays in Trafford borough as well as Pendlebury is influenced by it. Eccles, Swinton, Walkden and so on not.

Inner may or may not have articles but it needs to be made clear that it is central in main article. Outer should be mentioned in infobox. Influenced should be mentioned indirectly and not should be mentioned as separate. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Mablethorpe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 14th-century St Mary's Church, Mablethorpe, in Lincolnshire, England, is constructed of material classified as random mixed rubble, red brick and slate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Mary's Church, Mablethorpe. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, St Mary's Church, Mablethorpe), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, St Chad's Church, Chadsmoor,is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley Not every church is notable - and it looks from the FB page as if this one has not held any services since the pandemic. That wedding with the lorry was 10 years ago. Please, when you cite a newspaper article, remember to give the date of the article, not just its title.

The church doesn't seem to be mentioned in Chadsmoor: it might be best to give a brief, sourced, mention of it there, with a redirect pointing to it which could then be included in the list at St. Chad's Church instead of what is now a red link. Thanks. PamD 18:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley The infobox shows it as being in a Roman Catholic archdiocese and a CoE province. You might like to check. PamD 18:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, A Flower for Dandara, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Llanelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Centre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk pg. you have throw me your criticism. On the Longridge article wouldn't you think it's preferable to tag something as supposedly "unsourced" as opposed to removing text which could be seen as interesting, educational, and so forth? Thatkindofsummer (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]